A story on NBC News tonight about a U.S. couple adopting some Haitian children really bothered me.

[scarletwoman]

It was pretty much a fluff and feel-good story, featuring the happy and smiling (white) couple hugging and playing with their cute-as-a-button little (black) Haitian boys, talking about how thrilled they were to finally get the children out of Haiti.

They'd started adoption proceedings before the earthquake, from an earlier visit to Haiti when they had picked the kids out at an orphanage.

All sort of sweet and warm-and-fuzzy sounding, until the newsreader came to the real kicker -- the boys' mother is alive, she only gave them up to the orphanage because she was too poor to feed them.

And there was the American woman, waxing all emotional about how wonderful it was for the boys' mother to make such a "noble sacrifice" of giving up her children so the boys "could have a better life."

That's where my head exploded. Excuse me? What the hell kind of fucking phony compassion is it to just swoop in and and grab up some children and haul them thousands of miles away because their mother was so impoverished that she had to give them up? Wouldn't REAL compassion be doing something for the mother so that she COULD afford to keep her own babies?

These aren't puppies they're picking out from an animal shelter -- although that certainly seems like a remarkably similar paradigm as to how this couple went about "picking out" these children -- these are human beings who are being hauled away from any possible familial connection that exists in their native country. These are children who no doubt have grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and possibly siblings who they will now be out of reach from for years to come.

And their mother -- how is it that these smiling Americans seem to have no thought that she might be experiencing unbelievable pain at being parted from her children due to strictly economic reasons beyond her control? That her life is such hell that she had no hope? It's like the mother doesn't count as a human being deserving of a better life herself, so that she could keep and raise her own babies.

Nope, the babies went on the market, and the happy consumers swooped in and picked up a bargain.

And the kids are just so darned cute. Like puppies.

sw

[ORDagnabbit]

1. and whats wrong with adopting orphans from here?

[FarPoint]

5. Nothing is wrong with either option.

I think the red tape issues in the US are still a challenge for local adoptions.

[scarletwoman]

6. They're NOT "orphans"! They have a living mother!

[pnwmom]

64. But if she gave them up permanently, is the alternative of living in an orphanage

for the rest of their childhood a better one? If their relatives were going to adopt them, wouldn't that have happened already?

[Violet_Crumble]

144. You don't seem to be grasping that the mother was forced to give them up...

There's nothing pleasant about that at all, and instead of defending a situation like this, you should be working so that mothers of children aren't forced to give them up the way this mother was.

[Bluerthanblue]

181. by your reasoning every birth mother is forced to give up their children-

because there is always an "ideal" which could be met, which would make the decision one that needn't be made- from illness, to addiction, to abuse-

It's always "Ideal" for children to be raised by their birth parents in intact homes, with adequate food, shelter, attention and opportunity. But that 'ideal' is more often than not, never achieved-

I'm not saying that we in the US (and the rest of the world) shouldn't do everything we can to end hunger and poverty in the world- Haiti, Darfur, Somalia, India, among many other- This issue existed before the quake brought Haiti's plight to light, and sadly, will still exist long after it fades from the headlines- Portraying this family as some kind of wealthy, exploitative, cold hearted vultures is just plain wrong, cruel and counterproductive imo.

[pnwmom]

262. The average mother there has five children, but many have more than that.

Maybe we should be working to encourage them to use birth control if they can't afford the children they have.

[Hannah Bell]

264. your source is? mine says different.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=haiti+fertility+rate&aq=f&aql=&aqi=g1&oq=

[pnwmom]

268. Here's a couple links.

http://www.ichfund.org/Teampages/Presentation1.ppt

Many women marry and have children at a young age. The average family size is 5 children.

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_15/issue_14/opinion_14.html

With an estimated 9.1 million people, Haiti’s maternal health and family planning statistics are staggering. Of the 261,000 documented births per year, only 26 percent are aided by skilled health personnel, and only 85 percent of the women have visited a prenatal care center. Only 32 percent of married women ages of 15-49 use any form of contraception, whereas 25 percent of married women in this age range turn to more modern methods of birth control. Contraceptive use among sexually active single women ages 15-19 and 20-24 fares only slightly better with respective totals of 33 and 28 percent. Overall, only 46 percent of Haitian women from both urban and rural populations are satisfied with their available planning options.
Renewed attention to Haiti is crucial. According to a USAID report on Haiti, “links between population trends, poverty, and degraded natural resources are the central feature of Haiti’s vulnerability to tropical storms,” indicating a need for increased family planning due to the country’s dire economic and climatological conditions. As proven by the 2008 statistics in the report, the proclaimed request for family planning services is exceeding their availability in the country. In a 2009 query, 56.9 percent of married women did not want more children and 39.6 percent of women have expressed a need for family planning.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with a large population, problems arise when it surpasses what the economy and environment can support. Haiti’s unmet family planning need is due, in part, to the large portion of the population that does not have access to health care. The limited number of health centers and district hospitals are primarily found in more urban areas. This leaves the majority of the agrarian society to rely on permanent or semi-permanent sterilization methods as a fundamental family planning strategy, rather than short-term options such as birth control pills or condoms, thereby inadvertently persuading Haitians to avoid any method of contraception. Some may argue that cultural values in many of these impoverished areas are conducive to high birthrates. Women are undeniably expected and pressured to have children with their husbands. However, poverty cannot be assuaged until women are able to choose and control how many children to have and when.
Population growth is most severe among Haiti’s poor. 80 percent of the population lives below the poverty line and 54 percent of these live in abject poverty, and women from this lowest socioeconomic cohort have twice as many children than they would have chosen to have voluntarily. Furthermore, women from this group are unlikely to achieve sufficient levels of educational development to break the chains of poverty, thus cementing cyclical generations of poverty. The crushing weight of poverty forces primarily female-headed families to create habitations in the most climatological disaster-prone areas, such as on river banks and deforested lands, because they are the cheapest plots of terrain to be found. In a 1999 statement, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that, “growing numbers of poor people live in harm’s way on flood plains, in earthquake-prone zones and on unstable

[Hannah Bell]

269. i'm not seeing how the panama news & some surgeon's personal foundation are more authoritative

than world bank & unicef stats.

Total fertility rate, 2007 3.6

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/haiti_statistics.html

The source of the "five children" stat is apparently from 1977 survey, which was more than 30 years ago:

http://countrystudies.us/haiti/23.htm

things change.

[theHandpuppet]

285. Good luck with that

The country is 85% Catholic. Doesn't matter what happens to the kids after their born, as long as the women keep having them.

[Hannah Bell]

317. catholicism has nothing to do with it. some of the most catholic countries

in the world have the lowest birthrates.

high birthrates correlate primarily with rural & poor.

[rebecca_herman]

247. good point

My neighbors adopted a child internationally (although not from Haiti). He had multiple living family members - none of whom wanted him. Birth father ran off, birth mother didn't want to be a mom at her age, grandparents had zero interest in raising another child. They all gave up their rights permanently and stuck him in an orphanage where he was emotionally neglected and far behind in development for his age. He is now a healthy, happy, thriving child. I find it hard to believe leaving him in the orphanage just because it was his birth country would be a better choice.

[scarletwoman]

252. And that's not what I said, either. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

266. Almost ALL children EVERYWHERE up for adoption have a living mother.

[Dorian Gray]

272. That's the point

most people seem to be missing in this thread....

[Maru Kitteh]

116. In much of the US you need to be VERY rich, young, and VERY religious to adopt a child.

It's nothing unusual for a couple (married man and woman OF COURSE) to spend $30,000 plus for the adoption and be expected to have another 30,000+ in the bank account to provide for the child.

It often takes 2-7 years, and just as often ends in failure.

That's what's wrong with trying to adopt from here.

[Bluerthanblue]

210. that isn't true if you are open to adopting what the US calls

"special needs" children. Kids who are over 5, who are siblings, who aren't white, who are seen as difficult to place.

Please look into it- Single people, those who are far from rich, and who aren't aligned with any religion are not only eligible, they are desperately needed by many terrific kids seeking a permanant home.

Haiti's adoption process takes 2+ years, and is currently frozen. No new applications are being taken as a result of the earthquake, and most of those which were pending have also been put on hold.

[Maru Kitteh]

267. THINK ABOUT IT. If 5+ and non-white was a big problem in the US (not money) - - - WHY

would so many couples longing for a child look to adopt from Haiti and other places?

Unless you are the kind of person who feels "a calling" to care for severely disabled kids - you had better be RICH to even THINK about adopting kids for the most part, and super-rich if you want one of those DU approved kids from America.

[jasi2006]

130. I feel the same way. Adopt Haitian kids...sure but adopt some

American real "orphans."

[Raineyb]

223. Well for starters, children who have living parents are NOT orphans. n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. I agree... and this problem is only going to explode now.

Every country is trying to get a hold of these presumed "orphans." There will be little attempt made unless things change dramatically to ensure they do not have living family that would take them in and could care for them with some sponsorship assistance. It is very sad, but historically common.

[BlueJazz]

3. I'm getting more pissed by the minute. Geez...That poor mother has to endure..

...all the crap and misery of the past week and now she can't afford to keep her son.

Fuck!!!

[dsc]

150. those kids were in the orphanage well before the quake

as adoption proceeds had begun before the quake.

[emilyg]

176. Thanks. Facts matter.

[BlueJazz]

184. Damn...You mean I wasted a good "Pissed-Off" ??

:)

[scarletwoman]

185. Which I did, in fact, state in my OP. nt

[dsc]

189. I know you did

but the person I was responding to didn't.

[scarletwoman]

193. Thank you. It seemed that a couple of people responding to your post also didn't seem to know that.

So, I wanted to mention it. :)

[Raineyb]

224. That doesn't really change the circumstances behind this adoption does it? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I started reading the book THE BLINDSIDE recently and had the same reaction

It's a true story about a white family in Memphis who takes in a homeless black teenage boy and gives him a better life. Turns out he is a great football player and goes on to play college ball and is now in the NFL.

It's a nice story and I suppose you are supposed to think this white family has done such a noble thing. But it really bothered me. We can't possibly find enough white families to take in every poor black homeless kid. The real solution is in programs that help the community instead of a few select kids.

:shrug:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. Was the family just out cruising for a "poor homeless black kid"?

I suppose they took him in possibly because they.......I dunno, liked him or cared about him? Maybe even loved him?

I don't think the couple that went to Haiti had the same bonding experience with their new kids.

[Schema Thing]

7. One gets the sense that, to the adopters, it is "noble" in that the kids were born

as opposed to having been aborted.

ick.


I share your distaste, although I'm torn, because these kids probably do have a shot at a much better life (provided their adoptive parents aren't fundy douchebags).

[scarletwoman]

30. I don't doubt that these kids will have a "better life" -- at least materially.

It's the forced disconnection from family and culture that really bothers me.

And again, if someone REALLY wanted to help these children for truly selfless reasons, they would help their MOTHER escape from the grinding poverty that caused her to not be able to take care of her babies in the first place.

[Mojorabbit]

302. I tried to adopt in the 80s

and all available were African American children and I was told it was better that they languish in foster care till an African American wanted to adopt them as they would miss out on their culture with me. It wasn't easy in those days to adopt no matter the age and I doubt it is easier now.

[Hippo_Tron]

350. Is that logistically possible?

I agree that no mother should have to give up children if she is willing and capable of raising. The culture thing bothers me less as I think children are better off with a family, period.

But is there a means by which this family could help the mother escape the poverty which prevents her from raising her children? Certainly that would be the ideal solution but I'm not sure how it would be done.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

49. What makes you assume they feel that way about abortion?

Something they said?

Once a child is here, it's here. Can't uncross the bridge. I despise the right-wingers who suddenly don't care about the fetus when it becomes a living, breathing child.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. one gets many "senses"

sometimes the "senses" we get about others say more about us, than those we are judging.

[Maru Kitteh]

129. Exactly. Sometimes it's like a Rorschach test.

[Teaser]

8. How are you helping the mother?

.

[Truth2Tell]

198. If those adoptive parents really wanted to help out

they could take that 60k it's costing them to adopt that kid, transport him to the US, etc... and just give it to the child's mother. Virtually adopt the whole family. That kind of financial support in Haiti would likely insure that child and his real family - probably lots of them - ALL lived happy and healthy lives - without the life-wrenching tragedy of being separated.

Family is always more important than material wealth. This whole practice disgusts me and I applaud this OP.

So going forward now are we going to see the big international for-profit adoption agencies swooping into disaster zones like ambulance chasing lawyers looking for fresh cheap product? It's nuts.

[treestar]

286. There's nothing to say they would not include the mother

Nothing to prove they would keep her away from her children. She put them in the orphanage first, and we don't know why.

[scarletwoman]

294. We DO know why the mother gave her children to the orphanage, it was in the report.

She gave them up because she was too poor to feed them.

Nothing to prove they would keep her away from her children.

Really? You don't think moving the children thousands of miles away to another country isn't going to pretty effectively "keep her away from her children"?

[Teaser]

298. How are you helping the mother?

.

[Truth2Tell]

334. Sorry, your question is too stupid and irrelevant to answer. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

351. How do they get that 60k to the mother?

How does she hold on to that money without having it stolen? Haiti is a failed state without any security or rule of law. It's not like they can just buy her a house in a nicer neighborhood she can move there. There are no nicer neighborhoods except those in which a tiny tiny wealthy elite live.

[Waiting For Everyman]

305. Why aren't the NGOs in Haiti helping the mother?

[scarletwoman]

309. Please keep in mind, this adoption was arranged before the quake.

Obviously, the mother was unable to find the sort of help that would have provided her with enough food so that she wouldn't have to give up her children for fear that they would starve.

Not having enough food already WAS the status quo in Haiti, since long before the earthquake.

Haiti is a textbook example of what happens to a developing nation when First World powers destroy their economic sovereignty, prop up despotic rulers, kill off their agricultural self-sufficiency with "Free" trade, militarily occupy, interfere in their political system, and destroy domestic reform movements.

That mother was too poor to feed her own babies because of US.

sw

[Waiting For Everyman]

311. I agree, the NGOs were there before the quake too.

Clearly, they weren't doing a good enough job before this - as this mother's story shows. I get the distinct impression they were as much the problem, as the solution there. The quake put a spotlight of attention on how things are/were there. And it isn't pretty.

At least I guess it's good that these problems that exist in Haiti are getting noticed now. I do hope it won't get quickly ignored again though.

Btw, every thread about Haiti has been ransacked like yours - think nothing of it. I think it's part of an effort to get us to just give up on posting anything about Haiti at all.

[scarletwoman]

313. The problem for -- and with -- NGOs is that when the problems are this huge & systemic

they can't do much more than scattered holding actions. When a country's government lacks either the will or the capability, or both; outsiders can only accomplish so much. Add to that the interference from external powers -- NGOs can do nothing about trade agreements or the kidnapping of the President.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm fine with this thread -- amidst all the boos and hisses there ARE people who understand. And that makes it worth it. :)

sw

[datasuspect]

306. goodness

that was a gloriously stupid question.

huzzah!

[cutlassmama]

9. I was adopted and given up by a birth mother who was too poor to keep me.

Does this mean I shouldn't have had a chance at a good life? It was noble thing for her to do. You're wrong.

[Teaser]

11. You're right. This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a while

.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

339. I agree. There are much better things to be angry about than this.

We don't live in a fucking ideal world. Nobody is going to give 60,000 dollars to someone in another country when they want to adopt a child themselves. The OP needs to get real.

[scarletwoman]

18. Of course you should have had a chance for a good life.

Wouldn't you wish for your birth mother to have had such a chance too?

[pnwmom]

69. But how is this the fault of the adoptive parents? The children were in the

orphanage, having already been given up by the mother and not adopted by any relatives.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

147. Exactly +1000!

[Lars39]

22. But what would have been her options if she had changed her mind

within a reasonable time-frame, of course? She wouldn't have the resources to reverse it with her in one country and you in another.

[kwassa]

83. There are laws in each country that decide the time for mind-changes.

[Lars39]

97. And if the needed visas, etc can be obtained before the time period is up,

the mother is out of luck.

[LeftyMom]

25. There should have been a safety net which allowed her to raise her own child.

My kid's dad was put up for adoption because his mother was young, poor and had broke up with his father before she knew she was pregnant. When she asked for help all she was pointed toward was how to give her baby up, and she was told that she would be selfish not to. So she did, and he went to a upper middle class family in a small town, on paper an ideal upbringing. The bad news is that they never really forgave him for not being just like them- he had a different personality and interests and they never were accepting of that. For what it's worth, is mother raised her two younger kids in only slightly better circumstances and they came out fine.

I know in his case he'd have been a lot better off if somebody had just helped his real mother to raise him, rather than dumping him on some more "deserving" strangers who, other than finances, had no particular parenting advantages over her.

[jwirr]

66. Your story was very common before the welfare system came along.

One of our neighbors was the first to keep her child in our community and raise her on welfare. She did a damn good job and raised a beautiful person. I would rather see parents helped than children removed but in some cases it is necessary. We have a foster child in Tanzania and we send so much a month to help him. He has a mother and grandmother living with him. I always make it clear that my letters are for them also and that we hope his money will go for things for all of them. I get very angry at these foster programs that will not let you add to what you give monthly.

One of the things that I would like to see is some connection between helping agencies. I would like to see programs like Save the Children and Compassion and others that connect you with a child somehow connect with other types of programs such as KIVA.com and Habitat for Humanity, etc. This would really allow for the helping of whole families not just children.

[LeftyMom]

73. This was in the 1970s.

But it was in rural Ohio, so you can dial back a few decades compared to the rest of the country.

Thank you for helping a whole family. I think it's important to point out that doing so is an investment in the long term health of their entire society, not just that one family, where bringing just that one child out to a wealthier country wouldn't do anything for his country long term.

[EFerrari]

113. That would make too much sense.

:)

[treestar]

287. Heck my birth parents raised me and I don't have the personality

and interests they like. That can happen to anyone. But at least I had food, and education, and shelter.

[Gormy Cuss]

342. +1

There are similar stories in my own family and among my friends from childhood-- very poor mothers who were offered no help to keep the baby, only help in finding a new home. Adoption is a wonderful thing but when the birth parent is capable in every way except the wallet I wonder why addressing the poverty first isn't an alternative.

[Bluerthanblue]

46. thank you-

and you are 100% correct about your birth mother.

:hug:

[Dorian Gray]

52. Ditto

Also adopted, also given up by a young mother who couldn't afford to keep me. I'm sure it was a terrible decision, but since when has a mother had to DIE in order to allow their children to be given up for adoption?

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. These kids in Haiti are being uprooted from their culture

I think the point of the OP is that it's better to do things that help the community so these kinds of adoptions aren't necessary.

[scarletwoman]

118. Thank you. That's all I'm really saying.

It just bothers me that Haiti has been ground down to dust, to the point where mothers can't even keep and raise their own children without all of them starving. It's not right.

[Shanti Mama]

172. This is SUCH a touchy subject

I'm the adoptive mom of two children and we live in their birth country. Both have one living birth parent.

What is a "real" orphan? I would imagine both birth parents of most kids in the US system are alive. The children were relinquished for various reasons. This is also true in most developing nations, or not developing as is the case in Haiti.

I had the great and terrible fortune to adopt my daughter directly from her bmom. It was agonizing, I think more for me than for her because my western values just kicked into very high gear and I felt I MUST do something to help the bmom keep her/my/our daughter. But I knew, if I did that, the bmom would just 'give' her to someone else. Social values were just not in her favor.

When I see the bmom sometimes we talk about sadness versus regret. She is so, so sad that she is not raising her daughter, but so glad that she can see her and know that she's happy and well-loved. Does she regret making the decision--not for an instant, even though she was ostracized from her community for doing so, the community that would have shunned her had she kept the child.

Would it be better for every child to stay in their birth culture? Absolutely, at least when we're speaking of adoption, not of all the folks who immigrate to America for a 'better' life. Is it possible? Absolutely not. Do things like outsourcing and 'American' jobs going overseas make it more possible? Yes. Do DUers in general like outsourcing and jobs leaving the country. NO. What a conundrum.

Very little in life is straightforward. I ache for the woman (and man?) who had to put those boys in an orphanage. I imagine they feel great sadness for not knowing, for not being able, etc. I doubt they regret the decision they made at the time they made given their circumstances. But who know?

[scarletwoman]

183. Thank you for your awesome post!

I probably should have known that this was an extremely touchy subject, I finally decided to speak of my own peronsal experiences on the subject of adoption in my post #166.

I never meant to stir up such a hornet's nest, I just impulsively posted my reaction to a singular moment. After years of educating myself about how Haiti got to be such an impoverished nation, and my own feelings about being a mother and how unimagineably horrible it would be to be so poor that I'd have to give up my children, I just kind of flipped out.

I want to work for a world where mothers don't have to give up their children because they have no way to feed them. And the reason such conditions are extant in Haiti -- LONG before the earthquake -- is because my OWN government has ruthlessly messed with that country for over a century.

That's why my outrage meter jumped into the red zone -- mothers being forced to give away their children because of external circumstance beyond their control is just so tragic.

You are truly a compassionate person. Thank you, Peace Mother, for your part in bringing some saving grace into this world.

sw

[Shanti Mama]

270. My heart is full,.

Thanks so much for your words. I actually thought about creating a new thread with my post. What do you think? The entire subject needs a good airing.

[scarletwoman]

299. I think you would do a great service by creating a new thread with your story.

And I would hope that DUers would read and respond to it in the spirit in which I'm sure you'd write it. But, as you hopefully know, that isn't always the case.

I'd love to know more about your situation, and at the same time, I'd be terribly sad if anyone posted anything hurtful to you. So you must judge if you're willing to take that chance -- this is obviously a really emotional subject for many people. The reactions to a thread giving it "a good airing" it will be unpredictable.

Bless you,
sw

[treestar]

288. The earthquake is putting Haiti in the spotlight, but Americans adopt

from many countries - Guatamala I think even put a stop to it at one point.

China - adopting girls from China happens. That could be saving their lives, perhaps.

The US has so much diversity of culture - I don't see that as a big worry. There are Haitians in the US and who knows this couple might help the kids discover their culture here.

[ElmoBlatz]

10. Fair enough

Now that you know about this situation, what do you PERSONALLY plan to do to assist impoverished Haitian women who can't afford to keep their children? If you do nothing, then how are you different than the people who adopted them? At least they did SOMETHING (which is clearly not to your liking)

[EmeraldCityGrl]

12. If you're mad now, read this post from yesterday.

It was a real eye opener. Something stinks with all these adoptions going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7551662&mesg_id=7551695

[lunatica]

13. My grandmother was put in an orphanage because her parents were too poor

Her life was miserable there. She and her siblings grew up in the old south where being poor and white was something to be ashamed about. And being too poor to be brought up by your parents and be given to an orphanage was worse.

She had obvious self-esteem issues all her life.

There are worse things than being adopted out of a poor family. Those boys could have been brought up by the orphanage.

My hope is that the white family keeps them in touch with their mother and that they're kind enough to help her.

[scarletwoman]

90. "My hope is that the white family keeps them in touch with their mother and that they're kind enough

to help her."

I'd be happy for that, too. My heart breaks for the mother left behind in poverty. No mother should have to choose between keeping her own children and starvation.

[PSzymeczek]

165. I saw the story

and from what the adoptive parents said, they intend to keep the birth mother in the children's lives. Win-win-win.

[mattvermont]

14. Umm..do you think a vast majority

of adoptions yield from dead parents? Virtually all of them come from poverty or youth

[scarletwoman]

24. Sorry, I see third world adoptions as a whole other kettle of fish.

The birth parents are left in hellish conditions, while rich first worlders swoop in and carry off their children.

It's not right.

[kwassa]

95. You think things are easier here for domestic adoptions?

you don't know a thing.

[Bluerthanblue]

100. word-

:shrug:

[Trekologer]

114. You make it seem like the children are kidnapped

Almost as if the children were playing in a park and the adoptive parents just grabbed them. Or they went up to the parent and said, hey can I adopt your child? I see no evidence that was the case. Instead the birth parents willingly gave the children up to be adopted.

[scarletwoman]

126. When the choice is between giving up your children or starvation, I don't think "willingly" applies.

It's a forced choice, and not one that most people would "willingly" make if they weren't absolutely desperate.

[kwassa]

135. What makes you think adoption here is any different?

[Bluerthanblue]

136. you know the birth mother of these children do you?

you know that it was starvation that caused her to make this choice?

There are many things that lead people to give up their children, even in impoverished nations. Hunger is not always the most difficult thing to cope with.

Please, if you are as concerned as you claim to be, do some reading and learning about the situation. There are many ways to help- If this is a passion for you, get involved in a way that will really make a difference in the lives of these kids- AND their families. It's easy to condemn others on a message board- It's not so easy to really get involved.

I encourage you to follow up on your concerns, do something instead of making assumptions and condemning others for not living up to your noble standards. There is plenty of need for people who care and want to help.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

138. It was in the news story. The mother gave her children up because she was too poor to feed them.

That's an act of desperation, not "willingness".

[Bluerthanblue]

145. you are making some pretty heartless judgments based

SOLELY on an NBC segment of the news.

At least I have the benefit of being able to respond to your actual words on a message board. I'm trying hard to believe that you really care about the people of Haiti and aren't looking to just condemn this family because they don't measure up to your 'sniff' test.

With that in mind I ask you to look into this family.. beyond this one little segment you saw on the evening news- Don't rely on your response to a human interest clip put out by a corporate news broadcast- Find out the facts- study the effort that was involved with this adoption.

For your information, ALL new adoptions are on indefinite HOLD from Haiti. This is an excellent decision imo- I'm offended by your unkind characterization of this family, saying they chose the children as if they were choosing a pet from the pound, and your claims that they did this to appear 'noble' don't speak very positively about you-

I hope you said this without thinking, in the passion of the moment. It is disturbing to witness the agony that others survive and endure.

Do we choose to add to it, or work to alleviate it?


peace~

[Violet_Crumble]

148. Hold on there...

I for one am offended by yr rush to label the other poster doesn't care about the people of Haiti. I've seen nothing in their posts to indicate that they don't, whereas with you it looks like it's about some wealthy folk who adopted children who already have a mother. Stuff the feelings of the poor woman who was forced to give them up in the first place...

[Bluerthanblue]

160. no one is 'stuffing the feelings' of the birth mother- THAT

is something the OP seems to be choosing to exploit.

The adoptive mother recognized the decision the birth mother made, and acknowledged her- Where did I say the other poster didn't care about the people of Haiti?

Can you show me that? If the OP is as concerned about the fate of the Haitian people- particularly those who have placed their children in orphanages, what is she doing for them? How much does she REALLY know about the facts- (not her opinions based on one NBC evening news segment :shrug:!) ? How about not judging this family based on 'feelings' but rather on acutal verifiable facts?

The claim that the women of Haiti are "forced" to give up their children and the presumption that somehow other birth mothers in situations not as graphic do so based on some less painful or unfortunate circumstance is UGLY at best.

This family didn't just swoop down into the devastation, pick out some 'cute' kids and steal them away from their grieving mother as you and the OP seem to want to make people believe. Check out the facts-

Don't operate on opinion and assumptions. Is that really too much to ask?

[Violet_Crumble]

168. Yeah, I forgot. You saying the adoptive mother thinks she's awesome is thinking about her feelings..

And here's where you attacked the other poster for not caring about the people of Haiti in the post I was replying to. 'I'm trying hard to believe that you really care about the people of Haiti and aren't looking to just condemn this family because they don't measure up to your 'sniff' test.'

What are you doing to try to keep families together in Haiti? Bugger all from the looks of it. Why don't you start donating to organisations who work to keep impoverished families together?

As a mother myself, it's not a choice to give up a child because you can't look after them. That's being forced into a corner, and it's something you and others like you seem very willing to exploit. Have you adopted a child from another country yrself? It's just that you seem to be very quick to attack others who don't see things yr way...

[Bluerthanblue]

203. If you are really interested in

my personal history, then pm me- I do have first hand experience with issues of adoption, birth, and parenting which influence my perspective. Haiti's struggles are something I was introduced to back in the late '80's and aren't new to me. Especially the issues connected to poverty.

As for my attacking SW and the quote you offer- what I was saying (or attempting to say) is that I was willing to give the her the benefit of the doubt- something she didn't offer the family she chose to disparage based solely on one frickin NBC human interest story- (I thought most of us on DU at least, knew enough not to take the word of a network news segment as the real, full story!)
And that the emotions that many of us are feeling (and trying to cope with) may have caused her to overreact to this news report, and that she was reading something into the situation which made it sinister and corrupt-

You can believe what you like about me, that doesn't matter. What does matter is using our energy and time to make positive changes in this world for as long as we're here, in whatever capacity we can. Taking the time to gather facts, getting the full story - (not accepting assumptions or opinions) is important to doing that. The facts SW used in her OP are few and flimsy. Having a feeling doesn't equal reality. We feel all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

[Violet_Crumble]

257. I've PMed you...

I've got no intention of upsetting you, and I think both you and scarletwoman actually do care deeply about the children of Haiti, so I'd prefer to talk to you in a less emotional environment :)

[Mojorabbit]

303. +10 nt

[Control-Z]

132. Few mothers

just willingly give up their children. These are acts of desperation.

[scarletwoman]

170. Thank you. "These are acts of desperation" -- yes they are, indeed.

I don't know why that point seems so difficult for some people in this thread to grasp.

[PSzymeczek]

167. These adoptions were in process

before the quake. The quake merely expedited the process.

[scarletwoman]

173. Yes, I know. Just as I know that conditions in Haiti were already hellish before the quake.

I've actually been reading up the history of Haiti for quite a number of years, starting with the first ouster of Aristide under Bush 1.

I've paying attention long before the earthquake hit.

[asjr]

15. This is absolutely gut-wrenching. You are so

right about equating it with a pet shop. They could have given the mother money to raise them. There are so many children in this country who actually need to be adopted because they have no mother or father. But these people would not receive all the kudos for saving American orphans.

[LeftyMom]

16. Wealthy American families are outsourcing childbirth to foreign and domestic poor.

Whether via adoption or surrogacy, it's increasingly common to put parenthood off past biological feasibility, then just buy a foreign kid instead. Many of them DO have parents- many of those Chinese girls who get imported for American parents were actually SOLD in China, where foreign adoptions are a big and very corrupt industry- and then the purchasers get to act like the are great humanitarians for engaging in the sanitized first world end of a human trafficking operation.

[scarletwoman]

35. Excellent post! Thank you, very well said!

the purchasers get to act like the are great humanitarians for engaging in the sanitized first world end of a human trafficking operation.

Precisely!

[treestar]

290. l think that's pretty unfair

If anything, people want their bio children no matter what burden it places on the planet. Many adopting parents could be infertile.

and they may not know a lot of the details. And foreign adoption are highly regulated.

[calico1]

17. I think we will be hearing more about this down the road.

This morning I was listening to a NY radio station where they were saying how a lot of women in Haiti were more than willing to take in and take care of orphaned childrenbou
I think we will be hearing a lot more about this issue once the situation gets more normalized.

[wtmusic]

19. Chances are this "orphanage" is a baby factory

that is thriving on expensive adoption fees for babies and paying their mothers to have them.

They're better off.

[omega minimo]

20. You're right SW. That story gives me shivers.

:scared:

[AngryAmish]

21. I know a few women who gave up children for adoption

They were girls at the time. Having a kid when you are a child is neither good for the baby or the mother.

I must remember to tell them that you think they are scum.

[WolverineDG]

27. I think the OP is referring to the orphanage &/or the adoptive parents

and if someone did indeed prey on the bio mom to get her kids, then that person is scum.

dg

[pnwmom]

75. Haiti is an extremely poor country with a serious H.I.V. problem, too -- which

adds to the number of children in orphanages. And black children aren't all that easy to find adoptive homes for, even in the U.S. It's unlikely anyone is preying on these mothers to get their children.

[WolverineDG]

152. Unlikely, but with children disappearing from hospitals in Haiti

it is a concern.

If the adoptions are done according to Haitian law, no problem.

dg

[Maru Kitteh]

265. Do we assume the same of orphanages AND adoptive parents of white kids with a "Made in the US" stamp

on their butt? ALMOST ALL children up for adoption in the US have living biological parents.

Should all biological mothers of financial disadvantage be ASSUMED to be incapable of choice concerning adoption?

Should all biological mothers of financial disadvantage be forced to keep their offspring?

[scarletwoman]

282. Should we just accept that it's okay for mothers to feel compelled to give up their children

due to poverty?

How is that okay?

I'm not saying that poor mothers should be "forced" to keep their own children, I'm saying that it's not right that some women are so poor that they are forced to give their children up.

Oh, and screw that "financially disadvantaged" euphemism, it's as dishonest as "collateral damage". They're POOR, they're IMPOVERISHED, they're DESPERATE.

[WolverineDG]

347. CPS in the US legally kidnaps kids every single day

then sets the parents up for failure, terminates their rights, & puts the kids up on the adoption market so they can collect their "finders fee."

I never said anything about taking anything away from poor mothers, just making sure they aren't being preyed on.

dg

[scarletwoman]

32. WTF? I'm saying that the MOTHER should have been helped so that she could have raised her own kids.

Do you really have a problem with that idea?

[ElmoBlatz]

37. So how are you helping these mothers?

Who is it you're mad at?

[scarletwoman]

40. I'm pointing out that their poverty is being exploited.

Do you have a problem with that?

[kwassa]

79. How are you helping out these women?

You aren't, are you?

The adoptive parents are.

[pnwmom]

82. Who is exploiting them? The people I know who adopted Haitian children

did so only because they heard that that's where the greatest number of children were in need of adoption. They already had a biological child, but instead of having more they wanted to help children who needed a home. The children they chose had already been in an orphanage for years, with a mother who was living but no relatives who were able to take them. How is it preying on the mother or the children to legally adopt them when they are available for adoption?

[scarletwoman]

101. I understand all that.

What bothers me is the cruelty of the extreme level of poverty in Haiti that leaves mothers with no choice but to give up their children.

And I can't but wonder, would these mothers be giving up their children if they had some hope of getting out of poverty?

[kwassa]

124. It happens in the United States, too.

Why do you think domestic adoption happens?

[woo me with science]

142. Children EVERYWHERE need help,

often because of systemic socioeconomic or cultural problems in their countries. This is by no means a situation unique to Haiti.

In Afghanistan under the Taliban, for example, women who didn't have a male provider in the household were routinely forced to give up their children to orphanages, because the Taliban could not tolerate a WOMAN's holding a job to support them. The choice was to let the children starve, suffer brutal retaliation from the Taliban, or give the children up. Yet people are all about getting out of Afghanistan and freeing the Taliban to take over again.

Your anger at the adoptive parents is seriously misplaced here, IMO. These children were already in orphanages and desperately needed help NOW. It is often not so easy to wave a wand and fix things so that children can go back to their parents.

[Dappleganger]

200. In Haiti there is very little hope of getting out of poverty.

Just by virtue of their location they will remain as they are, and of course if a disaster occurs (war, major earthquake, hurricane) they fare even worse. There is very little hope to escape poverty in Haiti unless you LEAVE.

I think what's happening on this board is that many of them have seen all of the Haitien pictures and just can't over the fact that things are always so bad there and they just aren't going to get better. Ideally of course we want moms and dads to be able to stay together, to be able to earn a living, to become educated, to be able to raise a family in a safe environment. That isn't a reality for majority of people in Haiti even before the earthquake. Their situation will most certainly not change within the childhood of most of the surviving children of the earthquake.

There was a small video at the beginning of the earthquake of American adoptive parents who were worried over their adoptive son whom they had yet to receive (paperwork had begun but wasn't completed on the Haitien side). Their comments were that they understood that the process may completely come to a halt, but all they wanted was for the boy to be SAFE no matter what happened to their relationship. Now that's a great family!

BTW, I really wish the Haitien diaspora would step up to the plate to take these children into their homes, if they go anywhere. They have a unique culture which desperately needs to be preserved.

[scarletwoman]

208. Actually, at one point, Haiti was able to grow enough food to feed itself.

It was greatly due to decades of First World interventions that Haiti became a basket case.

I do appreciate your very good point about the Haitian diaspora -- I wonder how many of them are still economically disadvantaged in this country, too.

Yes, bringing the children to safety is a paramount consideration. But, like I said in my OP, there are some things about this that bother me.

[Dappleganger]

213. Yes, but they are nowhere near being that independent

and until they are they will remain impoverished. This is going to take time and a new direction for Haiti, completely NEW.

I appreciate that this bothers you so much, trust me it kills me to continue looking at my pics of little haitien boys knowing that many of them may still not be there. :( You take one look at them and fall in love, never to recover again!

It's my firm belief that Haitien children really do belong with Haitien families from all over the world. Their culture runs the danger of being snuffed if we aren't careful.

[zorahopkins]

43. It Was Her Choice

The mother chose to have other people adopt her children.

Do you have a problem with allowing a Haitian woman to make this choice?

[Dorian Gray]

59. No....

only white american women can make the decision to give up their babies for adoption. Everyone else who chooses to do so is a dimbulb third world idiot who couldn't possibly make that choice on their own.

Ugh.

This thread is killing me.

[Violet_Crumble]

153. What a stupid post...

There's no real choice in living in such abject poverty that there's no other choice but to hand yr child over to an orphanage. What's really stupid is to try to pretend women in the US are in the same situation as those in Haiti, or that women in Haiti have some sort of choice and that giving up their children is some casual thing and they should be grateful coz some wealthy Americans come along and adopt the kid. Let's hope that once Haiti gets on its feet (and that's all relative considering how Haiti was before the earthquake) that some of those wealthy Americans who are claiming to adopt only out of purely noble motives put their money where their mouths are and donate money to families in Haiti so the families can stay together. My bet is not one single one of those wealthy adoptive types would be interested in doing that.

[pnwmom]

227. "Wealthy adoptive types" -- what a misinformed stereotype.

The couple I know who adopted from Haiti are solidly lower/middle class and they sacrificed a great deal to pay for the adoption. But they knew they would be giving a home to two kids who otherwise would be spending their lives in an orphanage, and so they did it.

[Dorian Gray]

274. Agree

I know people in similar circumstances who sacrificed a lot to complete their families. They are in no way wealthy, and they didn't pick and choose their third world orphans like they were shopping for a pet.

[Dorian Gray]

271. There are many homeless women

in the US who have no choice but to give their children up for adoption, as well. I think it's the height of arrogance to assume that Haitian women have no choice in the matter but American women do. It's a painful and difficult decision that any woman might make, and it reeks of superiority to assume that a Haitian woman is forced into making that decision while an American woman is not. They are women who made choices (painful) because of their life circumstances. I assume that they want what is best for their children, and they are happy when a family who is able to provide a good life to their children will do so.

I know many people who have adopted from Haiti in the past. (Pre-earthquake) And that is why this thread is really pissing me off. They are all good people who provide healthy and happy homes for their children. And they are all very involved in Haitian issues. I know no other people right now who are so up front and center in raising money for various organizations dealing with relief efforts in Haiti. Not to mention the various orphanages, schools, and homes that they've stayed in while visiting Haiti while adopting their children. Good lord, I live on the border of Crown Heights, and there is a HUGE Haitian population here. Right now our neighborhood is completely organizing to do everything they can for Haiti.... everyone is involved. And the families that are front and center? Yep... that's right. Those who have been to Haiti to adopt their children and know first hand the horrible conditions and poverty that have been painfully exacerbated by the devastation of the earthquake.


So if you want to call my last post stupid, go ahead. But I'm calling it how I see it, and sadly, that's how I see it.

[scarletwoman]

70. Do you think that being so being poor that you have to give up your own children is a "CHOICE"?

Really? Do you think that she wouldn't have preferred to NOT be so fucking poor in the first place?

How is giving up your children a "choice" when you have no other choices?

[kwassa]

76. Yeah, it is a choice.

Not a happy one, but a choice, nonetheless.

[zorahopkins]

77. What About Poor Women In the USA?

Are you really truly suggesting that being a poor woman means that a woman can not decide for herself to have other people adopt her children?

This would be big news to many women I know. You are coming awfully close, I think, to saying that poor women should just keep their children and never choose to have other people adopt them.

You may wish to ask poor women in this country about the choices they made.

[pnwmom]

84. Do you think the adoptive parents forced her to give up her children?

That would be a crime.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

62. You mis-represent this point of view. I see nothing in the OP that refers to ALL adoptions.

[WolverineDG]

23. The whole thing hinges on

whether the mother was aware of the consequences of giving her children to the orphanage. Did someone sit down & talk to her about it or did they just say "sign here?" Did she visit them or did she walk out of their lives? Did the orphanage know where she was? Did the adoptive parents meet with her, or are they just repeating what the orphanage told them?

dg

[Tim01]

26. Christ, would you people cut the humans some slack already?

These folks wanted to have children, that was the goal. They did not set out to support a mom on the other side of the ocean.


There are various ways for these people to have some kids. They chose to adopt some kids who would otherwise have a horrible life. They didn't have to do this, most people have their own children and don't worry at all about the starving kids on the other side of the ocean.

I have friends who were adopted by rich white folks because their black single moms were too poor to take care of them, in the next county. My friends are happy and well adjusted.

There are currently tons and tons and tons of children in poverty, feel free to start support their moms today if you like.

[Xithras]

28. It's a side effect of the scarcity of birth control in poor nations.

This sort of thing used to be common worldwide. If you were dirt poor and got pregnant, it was often easier to give the child away than to watch it suffer or die alongside you. Birth control, abortion, WiC/Food Stamps, and the advent of at-birth adoption services and foster networks have largely eliminated this from the U.S. and Europe, but it's still a daily occurrence throughout much of the rest of the world.

In the U.S., if a woman gets pregnant and has no way to care for it, there are government programs capable of providing minimal assistance, and support networks to find a better home for the child if those won't work...assuming, of course, that she chooses to carry the child to term in the first place. In places like Haiti, there are no such options. If you get pregnant and cant/don't want to be a parent, your only option is to carry the child to term and hand it over to an orphanage. In the U.S., poor women can get subsidized birth control from places like Planned Parenthood to keep themselves from getting pregnant in the first place. In poor nations like Haiti, poverty and social barriers mean that birth control is out of reach of most women, so they take their chances.

Keep in mind that this exact same scenario plays out in the U.S. with American babies every single day. Poor women who get pregnant and cant/dont want to be mothers hand them over to other parents who can and do. The only difference is that we have prenatal adoption networks that let us skip the "uncivilized" orphanage step.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. It is also a very Catholic nation, whose church teaches against birth control and abortion.

[Dappleganger]

202. And quite often, in poverty one of the few joys they experience is having babies.

Women often derive a large part of their self-worth from their ability to bear and raise children, and those who are poor and less educated often suffer from very low self-esteem.

[Greybnk48]

29. Yup. Mom and Dad each got their own puppy.

I had the same reaction. Those little fellas should be with their own mom. Why not either offer her monetary help or bring her here as well. What they did is wrong in that it's exploiting misery.

[scarletwoman]

38. "...it's exploiting misery" Exactly.

Is not the birth mother also a human being deserving of help and compassion? Or is she just a convenient baby incubator whose only use is cranking out babies for first worlders to take home with them.

"I went to Haiti on vacation and look at this cute little baby I picked up in Port au Prince!"

[zorahopkins]

42. Haitian Women

I see this differently.

I see this a you disagreeing with the choice a poor woman in Haiti made for her children.

You think she should have kept her children.

She, however, made a different choice.

She chose to have other people adopt her children.

Why do you think she is "just a convenient baby incubator"? Could it be because you disagree with the choice she made?

Would you, instead, FORCE her to raise her own children, and forbid her from chosing to have other people adopt them?

Or would you, instead, prefer to just tell her not to have children at all?

[scarletwoman]

58. Jesus fucking Christ on a trailer hitch! I'm asking why the MOTHER wasn't HELPED!

I'm objecting the attitude that it's all right to just haul someone else's children away without doing a thing to change why the poor mother was so impoverished in the first place.

It's like, "Thanks for having these kids, we'll take them off your hands. You can just stay poor and keep suffering, we got what we want."

[kwassa]

71. They are awaiting your money. They take cash, credit, check ...

[zorahopkins]

72. Do We Have To Inject Trailer Hitches Here? Really?

"Wouldn't REAL compassion be doing something for the mother so that she COULD afford to keep her own babies?"

It appears that you really think that the mother in Haiti should have kept her children.

But that's not really your decision, is it?

The woman in Haiti made a choice.

You disagree with that choice.

Your notion of "compassion" seems to be to force poor Black women in Haiti to take "something" to keep their children.

I don't argue that it is compassionate to help out poor people.

But what I refuse to do is to suggest that a poor Black woman in Haiti should be denied to make a choice about her own children.

[patrice]

78. References to here "choice" are pretty presumptious too. It's not as though there were no factors

bearing on her state of mind, which, were they otherwise, could quite possibly produce the opposite choice.

It would be more honest to talk about how these women decide to adopt their children out.

[KoKo]

94. You mean the Brad and Angolina Syndrome? The Madonna Syndrome?

Hey there are honestly some folks believing they are doing a good thing and those will make sure the Birth Mother is included in the kids lives. But, there are others who don't have such noble intentions.

It's a sad fact of life...the poor get crumbs and sell what they have ...those who have can reap the benefits.

[Bluerthanblue]

149. these little fellas were in an ORPHANAGE not 'with their mother'

before the quake happened.

Your reaction is YOUR reaction, and says more about you than anything else. They aren't "puppies".

And I'm certain the adoptive family, the birth mother and those who placed the children with them don't view them as 'pets' either. Sad that you and the OP seem to.

:shrug:

[PSzymeczek]

171. Exactly.

As I said before, this adoption was already in process before the quake. The quake led to an expedition of the process.

[malaise]

31. Lots of Haitian children are about to be stolen

but they will 'prettify' these child abductions. The traffickers of children are having a feast in Haiti and some of them are 'holier than thou'. :cry: :puke:

[LeftyMom]

33. They're going to be the hot new accessory. The only real question is whether Angelina or Madonna

will adopt one first.

[Electric Monk]

48. Another question: What if Halliburton or Xe decide to adopt a couple hundred

since they're "people" now too?

[zorahopkins]

51. Could DU Adopt A Child?

Is DU an organization that can now be considered a "person"?

If so, could DU adopt a child from Haiti?

If DU did so, would DU be evil?

I am so confused.

[Raschel]

60. I'm glad that Black children are being adopted. It's not just Asians anymore.

I rejoice at it. Black children are no longer "undesirable" for adoption.

But does your post mean that Asian children were an "accessory" as well?

[LeftyMom]

67. Yes.

[LisaL]

180. I find nothing funnier than reading DU.

People wanting to have biological children are adivsied to adopt, but when someone does, it's still no good. I sincerely doubt that many children avialable for adoption are truly orphans.

[kwassa]

87. so, what do you really know about international adoption?

Nothing, do you?

You base your entire antipathy on the unhappy experiences of your child's father.

[LeftyMom]

108. Do tell me what I know.

Really, go on, because that's not assholish and rude at all...

[kwassa]

121. you cast quite the broadbrush

and don't know that international adoption varies in every country that engages in it, with different rules, and different regulations, and those rules and regs can change with time and politics. Some have very legitimate and well-defined policies, others don't. The plight of orphans in other countries is usually very bad.

The Chinese adoptions, by the way, of all the parents who I have talked to, come out of orphanages where the children have languished for a long time. The Indian government would only allow adoptions in America to ethnically Indian Americans. South Korea has the best developed system, which is why there are so many adoptees here. Guatamala had such a system, and has recently had policy reversals. Recently, Ethiopians have been an internationally adopted group in this country.

[LeftyMom]

131. You don't know when to quit, do you?

[kwassa]

134. I see no reason to.

[zorahopkins]

34. So Mothers Who Choose Adoption Are Evil?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Are you saying that mothers who choose adoption for their children are evil?

I know several women who, when they gave birth to kids, realized that they could not afford to keep them. They chose to have their children adopted by other people.

Are the mothers who chose to have their kids be adopted evil?

Or are you saying that people who adopt the kids of poor people are evil?

[scarletwoman]

47. Where the hell are reading THAT? I'm asking why compassion and help wasn't extended to the MOTHER.

I swear, some of the responses in this thread make me wonder!

Isn't the Haitian mother deserving of some consideration? Do people believe that because someone is poor that they don't have just as strong a bond with the children they give birth to as any other human mother?

Because that's what *I'M* sensing from some of you. She's poor and black, so she doesn't have feelings like the rest of us. It's no big deal that she had to give up her own babies because she was so impoverished.

[zorahopkins]

61. Here's What I Am Seeing

I am seeing someone saying that poor Black women in Haiti should not be permitted to choose to have their kids adopted.

I am seeing someone saying that poor Black women in Haiti should base their decisions on what what someone on DU thinks is the correct thing for her to do.

I am seeing someone saying that poor Black are really not "enlightened" enough to decide for themselves what is best for their own children -- and that poor Black women in Haiti should do what someone in America thinks is best for them.

That's what *I'm* sensing here.

[EFerrari]

106. And you would be wrong. n.t

[Raineyb]

236. I would suggest you get glasses.

What *I* am sensing is that Haiti is going to be the newest location for some white people who think they mean well to grab a child of color who they will raise in total ignorance of their culture, because it's some kind of do gooder status symbol. And while the children in this story weren't stolen (and frankly I saw the story about the white parents adopting a couple of Haitian children and the story gave me the damn creeps too because while I'm sure the children will be a lot better off materially there is something about the situation that doesn't sit right with me at all.) there are children disappearing from hospitals and I'm pretty damn sure it's not a coincidence.

And hearing about the LDS church running an orphanage in a black country REALLY gives me the creeps because I know the LDS church doesn't like black people.

[LisaL]

182. Why don't you personally help her?

[stray cat]

36. The kids should starve to death with their family in Haiti - or you could adopt the whole family

parents included?

[Cleita]

39. There was another such story as well about a Haitian mother who gave

up first one child years before the earthquake and then gave her three younger children to the same family after the earthquake. The American family did make a point of saying that the children would be visiting their mother in Haiti as much as possible. What struck me was, why didn't they bring the mother over too so she could be with her children?

[Bluerthanblue]

226. sadly it's very possible that our government wouldn't allow it-

it hasn't been easy for adults to get visa's.

:(

[DesertFlower]

41. it's a wonderful thing to adopt a child,

whether they are orphans or the parents cannot care for them.

my sister's friend (a single woman) went to vietnam and adopted a little girl. she would have liked to adopt another one but it was too expensive.

hubby's co-worker and wife adopted a 4 year old from china. she's 11 now and doing great.

on the other hand, a friend of mine and his wife are using a surrogate. the wife had a hysterectomy but they were able to harvest eggs. it's going to cost them $135 for the surrogate. it's important to them to have their "own" child.

[Bluerthanblue]

56. sorry- edited because i meant to reply to the OP.

[tammywammy]

44. Adoption is a choice

For the mother and the people that chose to adopt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. It should bother you becuase this is an ongoing problem

not just in the US. This is the ... nice side to human trafficking.

If I were to adopt a kid from any disaster area in the developing world, I'd make sure there was absolutely no family to take that kid...

Yes the kids will have a better life, but it is the sad side of it.

[patrice]

55. Yeah, and our deep feelings for Haiti atone for deaths of innocents in our Wars of Choice.

See? We aren't really heartless invaders who ignore the blood of children that fills "collateral damage".

:sarcasm:

[me b zola]

57. Following the news out of Haiti, a red flag went up for me too

I was shocked at how many church groups operate out of Haiti, and the orphanages that they run. I can't help but wonder if any of those churches influence Haitian politicians and interfere with a woman's reproductive health care, ie lobby for no birth control and abortion. IIRC, I believe that one of the news stations stated that 45% of Haiti's population is/was under 18/yrs old.



BTW, I was adopted at birth and love very deeply my now deceased (adopted) parents. This topic does not offend me, as I began a thread a few days ago (that sank like a rock). After learning about the egregious behavior of "The Family" in African politics I think that this is something that should be looked into. I know that in the coverage of The Family, on Rachel's show, it was said that they operate in many nations.

[lunatica]

63. Wouldn't it be more apt to rail against the poverty that caused this?

Poor people all over the world have to make hard choices that the well off never even think about. Many sell a kidney so they can survive for a little longer while wealthy people benefit by having the kidney transplant. No one is to blame. But poverty is the main issue.

Leaving the children with their poverty stricken parents doesn't help them even if you give them money. In third world countries the poverty stricken are illiterate and unskilled in finding anything above menial labor. The children would lose out on a decent education, good health, a life away from squalor and extreme prejudice.

Poverty is violent and ugly, most especially in the third world countries. No one would be helping anyone to give them some money and yet keep them in the hell hole of that kind of inhumane violence.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

65. Maybe rich Europeans or Asians can start adopting our unwanted kids

This argument about "It's tough to adopt a kid in the United States" is ridiculous. It should be tough, and not done on the spur of sitting in front of the TV one night with someone saying "Oooh! I want one!".

[kwassa]

81. They do.

Poor African-American kids are adopted by Europeans.

[kwassa]

68. Most people in this thread are talking out their ass on this subject

Speaking as an adoptive parent.

Adopting helps out both sides of the equation, whether it is a foreign adoption or domestic. It helps guarantee a better life, at least in opportunities, for BOTH sides. And, for the child. The same poverty or other burdens that causes a parent to give up a child in this country is the same burden that happens in the rest of the world.

and if you don't like that, you start supporting the family in Haiti.

[Bluerthanblue]

74. do you feel similar outrage for

those who have adopted baby girls from China?
Not only do most of them have living birth mothers, they also have or go on to have male siblings who are not similarly given up.

How about the thousands of hard to place kids in the US who have living birth mothers?

:shrug:

Did you protest when couples went to Romania to adopt the flood of orphans who had living parents but who were languishing in orphanages?

[Lorien]

89. This is in reference to one story told on television

don't ask her to write a fucking dissertation on world wide adoption practices for goodness sakes! This holier than thou bullshit has GOT to end.

[kwassa]

99. Um, it started with the OP.

[scarletwoman]

102. Yes, and my OP asked where was the help for the mother who was too poor to keep her own children.

It seemed a reasonable question to ask.

[zorahopkins]

104. Your Contribution To The Woman In Haiti Was..........?

It seems reasonable to ask, given your concern for the woman in Haiti who made a choice you disagree with, what you personally DID to make her situation better.

Besides being OUTRAGED, I mean.

[kwassa]

107. and the reasonable answer is, why don't you send her money?

so she can keep her child? If that is what she wants, of course. Do you have any knowledge of what SHE actually wants?

[treestar]

293. Or for that matter, all over the world

And where is the help to women in China to get them to realize their daughters are as valuable as their sons?

There are millions of children who will never be adopted by an American couple who will live in poverty all their lives.

the US is generous but it can't solve this problem even as an entire nation.

[Bluerthanblue]

103. that's right- this "holier than thou" bullshit is what I find

most objectionable about the OP's entire position on this issue-

Having actual personal experience with adoption - and I find her judgement cruel, offensive, and ugly.

Has she given up a child? Has she been given up? Has she adopted a child?

It's easy to judge when you really know nothing about a situation.

[zorahopkins]

109. B.I.N.G.O.!

Exactly right!

[kwassa]

110. yes, the OP knows little about adoption.

[EFerrari]

120. The OP is talking about the objectification of these children

not about adoption, isn't she? I don't see the part of the OP that says adoption is immoral.

/typo

[Bluerthanblue]

127. the one "objectifying" is the OP- SHE is the one who compared

them to puppies at a pound- SHE is the one who mocked the adoptive family for acknowledging the painful choice the birth mother made in surrendering them. SHE is the one who judged this family based on nothing other than an NBC news segment.

I object to her trashing this family and injecting her own bigotry into the situation.

Read the OP again please. The adoptive family was in the process of adopting LONG before the quake hit- Was Scarlet Woman equally concerned with the fact that women in Haiti and in the US and in Russia, and China, and Serria Leone, and all over the world have been making choices like this for a very long time? I find her outrage to be misplaced, and her comments and judgment of those involved in this situation cruel and offensive.

She doesn't express equal suspicion and ugly judgment about US women who have made this same choice. Are they less deserving of her concern?

[EFerrari]

137. I think you've badly misread her post and that you are projecting

all over her.

[Bluerthanblue]

178. no need to

project anything into these words:

Excuse me? What the hell kind of fucking phony compassion is it to just swoop in and and grab up some children and haul them thousands of miles away because their mother was so impoverished that she had to give them up? Wouldn't REAL compassion be doing something for the mother so that she COULD afford to keep her own babies?

These aren't puppies they're picking out from an animal shelter
( did the adoptive family imply in any way that they were anything other than CHILDREN?)
-- although that certainly seems like a remarkably similar paradigm as to how this couple went about "picking out" these children
( how does ANY potential adoptive family make this choice? what is so different about this family than any other family?)
-- these are human beings
(I don't think the adoptive family see the children as anything OTHER than HUMAN BEINGS, they didn't refer to them as puppies SW did!)
who are being hauled away from any possible familial connection that exists in their native country. These are children who no doubt have grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and possibly siblings who they will now be out of reach from for years to come.
( How does SW know what contact the children will have with their relatives?!! What a presumptuous statement to make based on___? NOTHING! )

And their mother -- how is it that these smiling Americans seem to have no thought that she might be experiencing unbelievable pain at being parted from her children due to strictly economic reasons beyond her control?
( AGAIN, who is SW to make this assumption based on ___? NOTHING!)
That her life is such hell that she had no hope? It's like the mother doesn't count as a human being deserving of a better life herself, so that she could keep and raise her own babies.

Nope, the babies went on the market, and the happy consumers swooped in and picked up a bargain.
(how is this is not SW projecting her opinion of the situation? )

:shrug:

There are several other statements made by SW in replies-- offensive, bigoted assumptions about this particular family, and what their plans for the future are- I won't quote them all. I'm sorry you can't seem to see it, but others here who do.

[EFerrari]

194. You mistake seeing that story in the context of this week

with the OP projecting herself into the story. And on top of that mistake, you call SW a bigot.

:shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

221. How could anyone possible mistake seeing this story in anything

BUT the context of this week EFerrari? Does the anguish this week has brought make it ok to cruelly stereotype this family as shallow, "white" "smiling" vultures who gleefully snatched up some "puppy/children" from frail arms of their suffering mother for a self serving photo op?

I believe the attitude that SW displayed towards this family IS bigoted. Evidenced by the fact that she mentioned their racial differences, questioned their motives for adopting, method of adopting, and implied that they had no empathy for or interest in the birth mother of the children based on nothing other than her own pre-conceived notion of what this family is really all about. Sorry, but that IS bigoted behaviour.

Many of us are having a difficult time coping with the emotions this last week brought up. That isn't an excuse to attack this family the way SW did in her original post.

[EFerrari]

237. In attacking sw, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse her of doing.

And pointing out the obvious racial inequality in this story is not bigotry. Noting that first world countries strip everything out of their sphere of influence, including children, isn't bigotry either. It's history or would be were it not ongoing.

Is that the fault of that couple or of any childless couple who would like to adopt a child? Of course not. But it's still right there under the surface and it does show up in the language these stories use to describe these situations.

[Bluerthanblue]

245. SW chose to start a post here on DU which made assumptions

about the motivations of a family who were featured on an NBC human interest story. Her original post speaks of this family in prejudiced terms(making judgments about this family that she has no evidence to back up). Am I "attacking" SW when I call her on this? Haven't I backed up my statements about the unfairness of her judgments about this family with her very own words?

I actually AGREE with SW in the desire to help Haiti become a place where orphanages are rare, and where poverty is non existent. I'm not the only person who hears something more than concern for the children and their birth mother in the OP.
I have no problem with SW making the case that we need to work towards easing the poverty and helping the people of Haiti. I also think that supporting families in Haiti and elsewhere is a GOOD thing. It's the unfair- baseless portrayal of this adoptive family as self-serving and callous, questioning their motive for adopting, AND their 'manner' of adopting that I can't support, defend or excuse.
It's not a simple or easy prospect to adopt and I don't think that's a bad thing.- If this family had simply given up or abandoned their plans to bring these children home, as a result of the quake, what would that say? They are committed to the children, and they're clearly doing everything they can to keep them safe, despite this terrible situation.

I don't believe they were hungry for media attention- and they certainly didn't deserve the trashing they got in the OP and many of the threads that followed- no matter how upsetting this week has been, or how tragic it is that we cannot fix the suffering we witness in this world, in the ways we wish we could.

going to call it a nite-
may we all treat each other with the kind compassion and kindness each one of us needs.

blu

[EFerrari]

308. There is something more than concern for those particular children

and their birth mother in the OP. The subtext is that this ongoing hollowing out of "third world" nations for their own good is unsupportable, indefensible, and inexusable.

Like you, blu, I want these children to do well in their new situation AND I want to see Haiti, like so many other places, stop being an object of predation by more powerful nations. Those two wishes are in tension with each other so we'll probably be revisiting this problem or others just like is again.

[uppityperson]

315. Thank you, this is a very good summary. thank you.

"There is something more than concern for those particular children and their birth mother in the OP. The subtext is that this ongoing hollowing out of "third world" nations for their own good is unsupportable, indefensible, and inexusable."

I agree with this also.

[EFerrari]

320. It's difficult for me to keep both of those aspects in focus

at the same time. I guess that's the challenge of responding to this situation even as a private person.

[Dorian Gray]

276. She is

and I do think that might be a real problem. I've been critical of the Madonnas and the Brangelinas in the past. But it's also something that might raise some hackles here. Many of us have adopted or have family/friends who have done so. And many times it's from a third world country. All of the instances of adoption that I know of involve wanting a happy and loving family to be complete. There is no objectification. There is a lot of thought into how and where the family will adopt from, and they love and adore their children. I think that it rubs many of us the wrong way to assume that third world adoption in this case is about objectification and not love and desire or a family.

[scarletwoman]

166. My late partner was an American Indian who had been adopted by whites.

Do you know the history of how American Indian children were adopted in this country? Do you know about all the "well-meaning" white folks who simply hauled Native children away from the reservations so the children could grow up in "civilized" homes? Away from their culture, away from their language, away from their extended families. It was an attempt at cultural genocide -- when it was no longer fashionable to simply massacre the Indians, the new tack was to "kill" their Indianness.

My partner spent years trying to find his way back to the birth family that he had lost. Too late to meet his mother, who had killed herself after he had been taken away from her. He went through a long bout of alcoholism, from which he was finally rescued by being taken under the wing of an elder from his tribe. He then dedicated what was left of his life to preserving and teaching his Native language and the cultural heritage that had been stolen from him.

I have a sister who got pregnant in high school, back in the old days when pregnant girls were spirited away and browbeaten into giving up their babies, so their babies "could have a better life".

She gave up her baby and was messed up for DECADES afterward. Numerous suicide attempts, decades of alcoholism. Four failed marriages. She finally pulled herself together about 10 years ago, way too late to ever have another child. And she still bitterly regrets ever giving that baby "for the good of the child".

Don't presume that I know nothing about this issue. I know the dark side of it very well. And as a mother, I can think of nothing worse than to be forced to give my children up because I had no food to feed them.

[mrs_p]

214. you are very blessed to be able to bear

children. there are many of us who are heartbroken every single damn month and adoption is our only hope.

[scarletwoman]

284. Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

And that's precisely why I find it so horrifying that a mother would find herself in such a desperate situation that she can't keep and raise her own children.

I imagine my own heartbreak, month after month, year after year, of not having and holding those precious children I gave birth to in my own loving arms, nurturing them and watching them grow.

[Lorien]

85. Agreed. More should have been done to help the mother

who is probably heartsick right now. Those adoptive parents have a warped set of priorities.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. this adoption was underway BEFORE the earthquake, when very

few people took much interest in the impoverished nation of Haiti.

Where was the OP's concern for the birth mother then? Foreign adoptions in Haiti were very well monitored, and involved a process which took 2yrs- This isn't a "whim".

Who are you to judge the adoptive parents OR the birth mother?

[pnwmom]

86. Wouldn't real compassion be financially supporting the mother instead of posting on DU?

Why are you in a moral position superior to that of the adoptive parents?

[kwassa]

91. Bingo.

Because moral outrage is currency most popular at DU.

[Lorien]

92. Yeah, right, no one should ever point out problems on DU

that makes anyone who does so morally inferior. Who did you open up you wallet to today? What noble efforts could YOU be engaged in RIGHT NOW instead of posting on DU?

[kwassa]

98. or you for that matter? Is your check in the mail?

[EFerrari]

117. By the same logic, we should never talk about

a problem we can't solve.

[kwassa]

122. no, I object to the moral outrage of the OP

recognizing that she really knows little about the world of adoption.

And I say that as an adoptive parent. If you wish to get on a high horse, know something about horsemanship.

[EFerrari]

140. I don't think the OP is about adoption at bottom.

It's about how we've seen Haitians objectified for the last ten days, every night, on the teevee. And message after message about how incompetent they are to run their own country and how much they need the United States to help them with the simplest tasks that they can't seem to manage for themselves.

That was my reading.

[scarletwoman]

151. What disturbs me most of all is that it's OUR OWN government that has so egregiously damaged Haiti.

It is First World political and economic policies being imposed on that nation for decade after decade that has brought it to its knees, and left its people mired in unspeakable poverty.

Poverty so cruel and unrelenting that women have to give up their own babies or see them starve to death. How can that not break any mother's heart?

[EFerrari]

157. For a hundred years by us this month, iirc. And Bill Clinton

is now talking about "the new Haiti" as if he just invented neo-colonialism.

[scarletwoman]

123. Thank you. However, I would add the word "personally" to your statement.

"We should never talk about a problem that we can't PERSONALLY solve."

See, because I didn't immediately hop on a plane down to Haiti with a bag full of cash for the mother whose children were adopted, I have no right to express any angst about her predicament.

[kwassa]

125. so, exploding heads is an expression of angst?

sure didn't sound like angst. Sounded like big-time outrage at something that will benefit the child.

The situation you describe in the OP is a classic adoption scenario, foreign or domestic, anywhere. Those are the circumstances that bring about adoption. Haiti is getting lots of media attention temporarily, but it is poverty together with other issues that bring about adoptions.

[Violet_Crumble]

155. Yeah, let's make sure the rebuilt Haiti is even more poverty stricken!

Gotta keep that adoption treadmill working for those filthy rich Americans ;)

[EFerrari]

141. If you decide to do that, please stop here first.

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

143. I am getting sick of these holier than thou posts here

where the response is telling YOU what you alone should do. Today I posted a thread about raising sales tax by 1% to meet the budget deficit in my state and was ambushed with responses telling me that I was welcome to give my own money to the state if I was that concerned about the deficit.

:wtf:

The assholes who post this crap forget that we are a community and are stronger together as one voice than we are as individuals. Plus that whole individual responsibility line is straight out of the wingnut manual.

[msongs]

93. you are a party pooper lol the outrage party nt

[zorahopkins]

96. Because of the OUTRAGE!

Don't you see?

The OP is morally superior to the adoptive parents because the OP is OUTRAGED!

The adoptive parents, on the other hand, are happy.

Apparently, it is this happiness that has the OP so OUTRAGED!

OUTRAGE ALWAYS makes someone morally superior to someone who is not OUTRAGED!

It's all very simple.

[EFerrari]

119. MIsses SW's pont entirely. You know, snark is no substitute for

actual thought.

[Violet_Crumble]

158. +1

Also, it's interesting to notice that they're too busy focusing on the happiness of the adoptive couple that they didn't even mention anyone else like the children or the mother...

[EFerrari]

163. Yes. Ironically, upthread someone called it a Rorschach test.

:)

[uppityperson]

191. It is very simple. You obviously mised the point.

[EFerrari]

115. What a pantload. SW is right. Those newscasters talk as if

these children just won the lottery and never ask why there is so much poverty in Haiti or why there is no social institution to sustain these moms. And this problem is about to explode.

[Bluerthanblue]

133. did the newscasters pay any attention to the orphans who have

been coming into the US from Haiti before the quake?
You ask why there is no social institution to sustain these moms- where the fuck is the social institution that sustains moms right here in the US? If we can't do it here, how in the world do you expect it to suddenly happen there?

Haiti didn't SUDDENLY become impoverished- The orphanages there have been crowded for decades.

I believe that the ideal place for any child is with his or her family of origin, but that "ideal" is not always possible, even under the best of circumstances.

I encourage you to look deeper than the OP's post- check out the adoption situation in Haiti prior to the quake- you might be surprised by what you learn.

[EFerrari]

139. And now you're projecting all over me. I have no idea why this OP

has upset you so much. But it's not in the OP.

But it's interesting that you assume since there is no safety net here, there couldn't possibly be one in Haiti.

[Violet_Crumble]

154. Why weren't these people donating to help keep families together in Haiti?

I'm sick of seeing people trying to justify the exploitation of a poverty stricken population for the satisfaction of wealthy Americans...

[Bluerthanblue]

164. because the families were NOT TOGETHER in Haiti-

the children were already in orphanages- they weren't simply picked up off the street!

What part of that don't you understand??? Where was YOUR attention, compassion and interest in the 100,000's of orphans who were living in orphanages prior to the quake???? I'm equally sick of the sudden self-righteous attitude of some people to those who were involved in this situation long before it became a cause celeb :shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

169. I was talking about before they get to that stage...

What bit of before a mother is forced to give them aren't isn't sinking in for you?

Um, you must have missed the bit where I said I've been sponsoring children through World Vision for years. What have you done? I'mn now really curious to know...

[pnwmom]

216. But the adoptive parents aren't the particular source of the problem. It's a collective

problem, but right now there are kids sitting in orphanages who have been there for years. And they need homes NOW -- they can't wait for the problems of poverty and inequity to be addressed.

[uppityperson]

188. oh pshaw. The first thing is becoming aware of an issue, talking about it to your friends

and then doing something about it. Guess you are morally superior and know about all of this and are already doing something about it.

No, DU is where we share things like this, talk about them, figure out what to do and do it.

[pnwmom]

217. I'm saying that none of us, including me, are morally superior to those adoptive parents

unless we have been actively doing something else that would have brought those children back to their birth mother -- assuming that she did want them back.

Talk is easy. Complaining is easy. Doing it on DU doesn't make us better people, alas.

[uppityperson]

231. misread

[pnwmom]

233. I said IF. I didn't assume anything about anyone here in particular. n/t

[uppityperson]

235. You said "unless" and I agree. will edit. eom

[newspeak]

105. there was a movie some years ago on television

about a woman who found herself homeless with her daughter. She was only allowed to stay so many days in a homeless shelter--and she tried to get a job to support her daughter. You viewed her experiences attempting to keep things together and being preyed upon. Her daughter kept telling her that things would get better (I think the daughter was like seven?). Anyway it showed child services meeting with her and relinquishing her daughter, while her daughter was crying out for her--and she was crying as she turned around a walked away. It was a five hanky movie. But, it showed the hopelessness of the woman attempting to keep her daughter safe.

[leftstreet]

112. IF POOR PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD CHILDREN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM

I probably need this:

:sarcasm:


K&R for your post

:applause:

[Truth2Tell]

128. I saw your post title and got ready to attack...

then before I clicked the link I saw who made the post.

so I knew it was sarcasm. :hi:

[HipChick]

146. I do wonder if these kids will be raised ...

and lose any sense of Haitian culture

[uppityperson]

156. I know what you mean. If the parents could be assisted so they would not have to give up their kids

that would be very good. "adopt a parent" rather than "adopt the child the parent can not afford to feed", help keep the families together.

[Violet_Crumble]

159. That would be a brilliant idea, though I suspect many in this thread wouldn't like it n/t

[EFerrari]

162. struggle4progress reminded me that Gitmo was initially opened

as a prison for Haitian refugees, and after he did, I remembered seeing them behind some kind of wire.

Then Bill Clinton decided he needed Florida and reinstated Aristide -- to stop the flow of Haitian refugees into Florida. When Aristide was back in, the flow of refugees dropped dramatically.

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

238. Unfortunately if I remember correctly, one of the conditions was the removal of tariffs on rice

which allowed American rice growers to dump rice onto the market and put Haitian farmers out of business.

[EFerrari]

310. Yep. That's what I've read, too. n/t

[scarletwoman]

177. Thank you. That's what I'm talking about, I thought it was a very simple point.

Judging from all the condemnation being heaped on my OP, I apparently didn't do a very good job of making it.

Oh well.

[Pithlet]

196. So you must hate adoption toooooo!

*spit and flail*

Actually I agree with you. This thread is so ridiculous. There is a huge difference between giving up a child because one isn't ready to parent, and giving up a child because one can't afford to.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Donate to World Vision and help keep families together...

It's a christian organisation, but I've sponsored a Palestinian kid for a few years, and they don't hit you with anything religious...

http://www.worldvision.org/

[PSzymeczek]

175. Bullcrap they don't.

Have you seen any of their movies? Even back in the '60s and '70s, WorldVision was making overtly preachy movies.

[Violet_Crumble]

256. They don't here in Australia...

Gotta admit, I did wonder whether my sponsor child was Christian or Muslim (she lives just outside Bethlehem) and figured she was Christian when I got a hand-drawn Christmas card with a bunch of camels, wedding cakes, and christian crosses in it...

Anyway, over here World Vision passed the acid test for this atheist who refuses to donate to the Salvation Army due to their Christianess. Part of it's due to me not finding anywhere like World Vision who actually get in there to the child's community and do projects that will try to ensure that the community is sustainable and families will stay together. If I could have found a non-religious alternative that was as effective, I would have gone for it, but I was assured that World Vision wouldn't be tromping round my sponsor childs village handing out bibles or pushing religion at all....

[johnnie]

174. Fuckin' white devils

They shouldn't be able to do this!

[LisaL]

179. And a better alternative would be for them to sit in the orphanage

in Haiti?

[uppityperson]

187. No, a better alternative would be a parent not having to make the choice of orphanage or starvation

for a child. That is a better alternative and what the OP is about.

I was appalled when I read that many in orphanages are not orphans, but their parents cannot afford to feed them. THAT is appalling.

[LisaL]

190. Are you against adoption at all then?

I presume most children up for adoption aren't really orphans. Not just from Haiti.
I frankly find it hilarious how people intending to have bio children are given advice here that they should adopt. Who exactly are they supposed to adopt?

[uppityperson]

192. No, I am not against adoption. I am against parents having no choice but adopt or starve

Is this that difficult to understand?

If the only other choice for a parent it to let their child starve, then it is not a free choice. If a parent wanted to keep and raise their child, except they cannot because the child would die, then I would rather help the parent than adopt the child.

[LisaL]

195. What stops you from helping the parents then?

[Dappleganger]

206. Well that is the reality in Haiti.

And it's not going to get any better anytime soon. Your idealism is highly impractical and if you truly cared about them as much as you claim then you would put that energy to better use by either giving to one of the local agencies or going down there (as I have done) and trying to help the situation yourself. I'm not trying to be critical but realistic and idealism doesn't put food in their stomachs nor a job to go to.

[uppityperson]

230. Do not assume so much. You do not know me or what I have done.

I can be idealistic as well as pragmatically practical. I can see that a situation is wrong AND work towards bettering it.

Do not assume that merely because I see something wrong, that I will not, have not, done things to help better it.

You assume too much. Beware.

[Dappleganger]

246. 'Beware?'

Are you threatening me?

Welcome to the iggy list.

[uppityperson]

254. If you take a warning like "Beware assuming so much" as a "threat", perhaps you should ignore me.

good grief

[LisaL]

330. Haiti has a lot of children in orphanages.

I presume the ones who are adopted are actually the lucky ones to get out of that situation.

[uppityperson]

349. I agree, I am very sad though that the situation exists where children have parents yet are in

an orphanage, that the parents are unable to feed them so they can stay with them. Part of the problem I see is the term "orphan". For me, this means someone whose parents are both dead. I feel badly towards children whose parents are both dead, and feel VERY badly toward children and their living parents in situations like this.

[MellowDem]

186. Your emphasis...

of (white) adoptive parents and (black) children makes it sound like you don't like this interracial raising of children. I truly wonder if you would have felt the same way if the adoptive couple had been black. As for the mother, that's a whole other issue which the adoptive parents really don't have control over, so why bash them?

Seriously, you are arguing for some sort of "ideal" family package that seems rather conservative and unrealistic. No the children won't be raised with their cousins, brother-in-laws, uncles, etc. by birth, but it doesn't mean they won't have new ones over here. And yes, their parents are WHITE! Ahhh, can you believe it!? The humanity! :eyes:

[EFerrari]

197. Oh, brother. That's mostly what we've seen all week.

White American couples talking about adopting little black kids. SW didn't invent that and it wasn't her emphasis. That was the story. lol

[MellowDem]

220. Well, I got the "sense"

that SW was exasperated about the whole white adoptive parent/black children thing, which seemed to come through in the post. I better understand the frusteration now because of the idea it might be a sort of cultural genocide in the OP's mind.

Hey, I get the whole exasperation with outpourings of wanting to help out in the latest "fad" disaster, especially when it comes to the adoption of children. And I even understand the whole "picking out puppies" attitude. I don't like it, though I can't say that the couple was guilty of the first, what with having planned to do this before the earthqake. Still, the racial emphasis that I felt (and you may not have) didn't make any real sense, other than just a sort of annoyance that these children would be raised by whites and be given "white" values (whatever that means). It felt ugly to me. Madonna and Angelina get some of the same treatment I suppose, for adopting colored children. But if they only adopted white children, they would be shat on too, so no matter what white couples do, it seems they are somehow racists/bigots/cultural genociders. I suppose it's because you don't see much of the reverse, if ever. I know I personally haven't, though I'm sure it happens.

If some rich black Haitian couple wanted to adopt some poor whites from an orphanage and raise them in their culture, I would say the more power to them. Of course, I would also perhaps question why they don't just adopt from Haiti, as many have wondered about the American couple here, though the bureacracy and red tape here does really make a difference I suppose.

[EFerrari]

229. The thing that is really stinging is that this adoption story,

which hopefully will turn out well for those kids, is a metaphor for the US Haiti relationship. The reason that there is grinding poverty in Haiti is because the US and France created it in the richest colony in the "New World". Even as late as Raygun, Haiti was producing 80% of its own food, but each president since Raygun has helped privatize and destroy the public sector in Haiti -- all under the aegis of "helping out" those poor Haitians when in reality, the paternalism has been anything but altruistic. A few people got rich and Haiti was devastated.

That our media tends to talk about Haitians as if they are helpless and incompetent doesn't help much, either.

It's not really "interracial" when all the power is on one side, is it? That's the bigger picture or, at least, part of the bigger picture.

[scarletwoman]

201. I don't like mothers being forced by poverty into giving up their children because otherwise they'll

starve. All I asked in my OP is why isn't the birth mother being helped so that she could keep her own children.

And yes, I have a problem with happy shiny white people taking advantage of impoverished Third World mothers giving up their children because it carries a whiff of cultural genocide to me. See my post #166.

[LisaL]

205. Who do you expect should be helping her?

[MellowDem]

211. Cultural genocide?

So preserving a culture (which constantly changes anyways) is more important than the well-being of individuals? I learned a long time ago that we need to let go of "culture" like we need to let go of "race". For many people, they see them as one and the same in many instances (the quote of keeping New Orleans "chocolate" comes up). To me, it just comes down to people being afraid of change and needing an identity to be given to them. And usually there is little historical perspective. Haiti was once all Native American, now it is mostly black, and who knows what it will be one day? Same with the culture there, which has gone through so many evolutions and will continue to.

If this carries a whiff of cultural genocide, doesn't all immigration in general as well? Should whites only adopt other whites? Though, if they're from a third world country, like Romania, isn't that still cultural genocide? And wouldn't black parents adopting these Haitians still lead to them having a different cultural upbringing?

I suppose I don't get you going straight to blaming "shiny white people" for the plight of Third World mothers.

[Dappleganger]

215. Preserving a culture is extremely important...

is it as important as preserving individuals?

I think it is. The Haitien diaspora needs to step up to the plate on this matter.

[MellowDem]

222. Why?

Why are preserving cultures extremely important? All it brings to mind to me is the idea of preserving "races" and keeping races "pure". I mean, if preserving culture is extremely important, shouldn't be stop all immigration at once and close ourselves off, lest it change or morph our culture into something else? I just don't get the reasoning behind it, and it frankly comes across as a conservative viewpoint, since it's one I've heard applied so many times to the immigration debate.

[Dappleganger]

239. No, my view is probably closer to the Canadians'

POV regarding different cultures in the world. It's not about keeping a race 'pure', it's about preserving those languages, traditions, arts and family ties which give a person a unique identity and value in this world. Haiti's culture is a blend of many things, true--but it's their blend nonetheless and it's vital to preserve it. That part of the world will suffer a huge loss of it disappears.

BTW, I'm offended that you think my viewpoint is conservative and would appreciate you not judging me in that manner. If that were the case, I'd not waste time on this board.

[MellowDem]

244. Sorry you took it as such...

I was just pointing out that I have seen similar reasonings from conservatives as to why immigration should be stemmed, because they are afraid of diluting American culture or changing it.

All I can say about the Canadian viewpoint is that it seems like they will do what they can to not "impose" Canadian culture, which is fine, but of course we all know that won't stop cultures from continuing to die out at a rapid pace. Languages, traidtions, etc. are all dying out or changing rapdily everywhere in this newly globalized/industrialized world. Is that a bad thing? I'm not so sure it's even a good/bad question.

I also personally question the idea that your culture "gives you a unique identity and value in the world". I mean, to me, you are born into a certain culture, you don't pick it per se, and while it is a part of your identity, your identity changes, so it is ok if your culture changes (and it will). I don't necessarily think it makes one's identity any more unique than it would be otherwise, and in many cases it seems to create a homogenity, where everyone of the same culture stays together in an effort to "preserve" it. As for value, I suppose it just depends. No one really speaks Latin anymore as a common language, but have we truly lost something for it? I mean, all cultures will one day belong in the history bin, and I think trying to preserve them in their same states is an unnatural and impossible task, one that is not good for anyone involved. Cultures are meant to evolve.

[lunatica]

225. How will the children be helped if they're in wretched poverty?

From your insistence in this thread to hang on to your misinformed opinion it's pretty clear you have no idea what true poverty and squalor is in third world countries. How could any couple help an extended family who are so dirt poor that they have no hope of a decent life. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with just how bad off people are in Haiti which is one of the poorest countries in this continent.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you cling to your ignorance like it's some badge of honor. Look it up. Find out about how oppressive the kind of poverty that Haiti has is. Millions of people are living in ramshackle slums the like of which you don't have a clue about. No running water, no electricity, refrigerators, no bathrooms or showers or TVs, no jobs except the most menial and servile, no literacy and no hope of any improvement. They scratch for mere existence and you think a couple can help them all? You think the children should be left there and have money thrown at them? The kids you think should be left there now have the opportunity for a decent life, but you think those who provide that life for them are using them as some sort of puppies? You haven't a clue.

[Dappleganger]

209. Interracial adoption is a whole 'nuther topic

but it really is worth addressing. If this is in regards to Haitien children it really should be called intercultural adoption for better clarification. BTW, we have a family member who has adopted three children, two of whom are African-American (and the other white) so it's something we've discussed a LOT. Neither child has contact w/the birth mother but both have regular contact with other sibs/half-sibs so they will always know them. Neither birth mother is able to parent due to drug addiction.

[leftstreet]

242. This is a Class issue, not a Race issue n/t

[bluestateguy]

199. The whole thing seems like none of my business

I have no position on this issue.

[autorank]

204. k*r scarletwoman You're messin' with the story line

This is all part of the script. Changing the image, just bypassing the 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians, the lost soldiers and the scores more injured severely for life, the ongoing suffering in a Hell that Bush-Cheney made. That image is being changed. The imagineers will not be happy. Excellent post.

[scarletwoman]

260. I've apparently messed with all kinds of stuff with my OP, judging by the responses.

I guess I'm just unAmerican...

[autorank]

322. Very American!!!

[mrs_p]

207. yeah, those women who can't bear their

own children are just consumers. how dare they have barren wombs and adopt children born from a fertile woman who gave them up...

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

219. This thread has become a honey pot for everyone

who needs to drag their issue here and attribute it to someone else.

Good grief.

[mrs_p]

232. no, the OP expressed basically how horrible

these white americans were to adopt children from haiti - children that had been given up by their mother before the earthquake. yes, it is sad she can't take them herself, but it is not the adoptive parents' fault. the op is shitting on adoptive parents by her assumption that all they care about is the product. could it possibly be that they want a family and don't care what color or circumstance the children come from? could it be that they just want children to love? i think it is very easy for women who CAN have children to shit all over women who can't.

[EFerrari]

234. The OP described a story on television. She wasn't taking about you

or about women who can't produce children.

[Contrary1]

212. If I was about 4 decades younger...

I would try to adopt one or more of the children who lost a limb because of the earthquake.

I saw a news clip this past week where a young girl was going to lose a leg. The little girl, who was about 6, was sobbing. Her mother said, (in front of the little girl) that she would sooner see her dead, because life in Haiti for an amputee was even more horrific than death.

How sad is that? :cry:

And, to the original OP...I share your head explosion.

[Dappleganger]

218. You can barely get around the city

you can't work as an amputee because you depend on two hands and two feet to take you to and through a job (if there is one to be had). Realistically, an amputee is another burden on the family and in their environment cannot carry their weight to help bringing in enough income.

[JCMach1]

228. Sure beats the hell out of starving on the street with a glue ring around your mouth...

Which is the situation I saw in Nepal where the government has made it almost impossible for foreign adoptions.

The face of that 6 year old boy will haunt me forever...

[smokey nj]

240. Here's a link to an article you might find interesting. It was in Mother Jones about 2 years ago

and was written by a woman who adopted a baby girl from Guatamala. The title is "Did I Steal My Daughter?"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/10/did-i-steal-my-daughter-tribulations-global-adoption

[Zomby Woof]

241. As a rule

I don't like to second guess people's reasons for adopting children.

It's never that cut and dried, except in the polarized world of DU insanity.

[G_j]

243. but.......the boys will have a better life!

which may be true but, you are absolutely correct. It is so convoluted and utterly sick the way the poor are taken for granted, like a 'given'. As if they just belong in this world, and have their place. The warm fuzzy angle just cements the terrible disgrace of what we allow our human family to endure, when we are smart enough as a species to make it otherwise.

I'm sure there are others as you, who saw the inequity and tragedy of the mother's suffering, the bottom line being poverty.
Perhaps some good will come out of that.

[scarletwoman]

251. Yes, it's like poverty is accepted as nothing more than a natural state for *some* people.

Like some people are tall, and some people are short, and some people are poor, and that's just how it is.

I read a great quote once that I can't remember exactly, but it was a retort to the usual "You're anti-American" argument that gets trotted out when someone points out all the shit we've done to Third World countries. The outraged "patriotic American" makes the assertion that If America is so awful, why do all those illegal immigrants risk their lives to get here?

And the answer is: Which end of the sword would people rather find themselves on? The end that wields the sword, or the end that stabs them?

We who have lived our lives on the wielding end seem to have a very hard time, indeed, of imagining ourselves in the place of those on the stabbing end.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.
sw

[grahamhgreen]

248. Agreed.

[Liquorice]

249. I'm sure it's been said somewhere in this thread already, but the same

thing happens in this country too (and probably most other countries as well). Women and teen-aged mothers sometimes give up their child because they do not have the means to support the child. I've always felt very ambivalent about adoption for that reason. I don't understand why the adoptive parents don't just help the mother raise her child, rather than taking the child and raising him/her themselves. In these cases of economic hardship, they clearly do not want to "help" the mother; they just want a child and can't have one of their own. It's just weird.

[Meldread]

250. This post and thread is so offensive...

You are comparing what this family has done with picking out a dog at the shelter? :wtf: I guess people just need to be outraged about something.

Reality: The people who adopted did so because they wanted children, not because they wanted to support their mother.

Reality: Is the choice the mother made due to her circumstances bad? Yes. It sucks.

Reality: In an ideal world, would the mother have raised her own children? Yes, but this isn't an ideal world.

Reality: Are the adoptive parents bad people for wanting children, and choosing to adopt these children? No, absolutely not. Only on DU can you be criticized for having biological children, then get criticized for adopting children, and then get criticized for denying a child a home for choosing not to have ANY children. Logic = Fail

Reality: There are many programs out there to help struggling families in poor nations. Google, find one, send money. Less outrage, less telling others what they should do and / or should have done, and more doing it yourself. You can't control other peoples actions, but you can control your own. If you don't have the money to send, and you feel strongly about it, start an advocacy group and partner up with one of relief organizations if you don't have the cash to send.

Reality: Most children placed up for adoption come from mothers who give them up for a number of reasons, the largest two being young and poor. This happens in all countries, including the United States. If you want to help with this, find ways to promote contraception and even abortion. The former is more preferable because it also reduces the spread of STD's. You can also promote sterilization procedures for both men and women.

No matter what is decided, I dislike the moral indignation. The mother knew what she was doing when she gave the children away, and I have little doubt that they'll find themselves to live in a happy home. In fact, since the mother gave the children away because she was too poor to take care of them, I am sure it helps her rest easier knowing that her children have been placed with a family that can provide them with all they need and more.

After all, is anyone really going to endorse the alternative? Leave the children up for adoption and/or have the mother keep them while living in extreme poverty? Yeah, I don't see that as much of a solution. Giving money to the mother isn't a solution, because that wasn't the goal of the couple.

It may seem somewhat selfish... but everything humans do is selfish to some degree. Every dollar sent to the relief in Haiti was done for selfish purposes, albeit unknowingly. People saw what was happening, and wanted to help in some way. They were rewarded by being allowed to help. They were also rewarded by chemicals in their brain firing off making them "feel good" about their actions. It was that "feel good" feeling that people sought, because without it we would be reduced to anti-social self-absorbed individuals. Also studies have shown that it's equally as good to give as it is to receive gifts.

[Bluerthanblue]

253. .

good night

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

255. And there it is.

Giving money to the mother isn't a solution, because that wasn't the goal of the couple.

Nothing bothers you about that?

[noamnety]

259. FWIW, I understood your post.

As parents - even as adoptive parents - the primary responsibility is to do what's best for your child.

The mother in Haiti was trying to do that, trying to ensure her child would have food where she couldn't provide it. I don't know why anyone misunderstood that you were criticizing that.

The adoptive parents ... well, there's the dilemma. It's better to be adopted than be in an orphanage, yes. Better. But the best outcome for the child is to stay within their own culture, with their own mother, and have food. Assuming the article was correct, the adoptive parents could have ensured that for far less than what they spent on adoption, but they opted to do something worse for the child that met their own emotional desires as adults. That doesn't seem like a great start to a parenting relationship - prioritizing what you want over what's best for the child.

[scarletwoman]

263. Thank you for understanding.

I'm sure the adoptive parents will love those children and take good care of them. I just can't get past thinking about how their birth mother might have loved to be able to love them and take of them herself. And how awful that she's in a situation where she can't, and why doesn't that matter?

[Meldread]

324. Of course it bothers me.

If we lived in a perfect world, the mother wouldn't have had to give up the child in the first place. But we don't live in a perfect world. I don't blame the adoptive parents for wanting children, why would I? You can blame the circumstances that caused the mother to have to give up the child in the first place. Yes, in that case rage is justified. You cannot - or at least should not - blame the individuals who take a child OUT of an orphanage in an attempt to give them a loving home.

Blame the circumstances, not the people who attempt to make a bad situation better. After all, as a mother, if you were forced to put your children up for adoption which would you rather have: a loving couple adopt your child and give them the life that you could only dream of giving them, or having them rot away in an orphanage? Those are pretty much the only two choices for the mother. If the couple weren't looking to adopt a child, they most likely wouldn't have looked to Haiti in the first place, and thus never have learned of the children or their mother.

And no, simply giving money to the mother to let her raise her own children doesn't help either. Why? Because that causes pain to the would be adoptive parents who, like the mother who had to give up her children, are likewise deprived of having a child. Being someones biological child does not make you "family" - it's the people who love you, who are there for you, who take care of you when you need them - that is what makes a family.

[scarletwoman]

333. Sorry. How can someone be "deprived" of something that wasn't theirs in the first place?

And no, simply giving money to the mother to let her raise her own children doesn't help either. Why? Because that causes pain to the would be adoptive parents who, like the mother who had to give up her children, are likewise deprived of having a child.

So, providing the means for a mother to keep her own children is "depriving" someone else of the opportunity to take those children away from her?

I simply can't fathom that kind of rationalization. The mother doesn't OWE her children to someone else just because they can't produce their own.

[Meldread]

337. No one said she did.

The mother doesn't owe the couple anything, and likewise the couple doesn't owe the mother anything. The couple is not responsible for the mother or her situation.

There have been many cases where couples have attempted to adopt children and mothers have reneged. It often happens when the mother first becomes pregnant and decides to give the child up for adoption. The couple who wants the child meet the mother, and prepare for the child, begin to think of their life with a child, and then after it is born the mother decides she wants to keep it. Does this mean she is entitled to give the child to the couple? No. Does that make the pain of the couple hurt any less? No.

What you're effectively saying is that one group (the couple) should deny themselves the right to be happy, in order to provide happiness for someone else. You cloak that in the pretense that the children would be happier with their birth mother, but you don't know that for certain. There are many children who are adopted who either knew their birth mother when they were younger, or grew up and later discovered her... and decided that they liked their adoptive parents and life better.

Even if the couple gave $100,000 or more to the mother to provide for the children, they'd still be living in Haiti. They'd still suffer by virtue of their environment, and their life opportunities would be limited as a result.

[Raineyb]

344. Uh, actually YOU did. The use of the word deprived implies some type of

obligation which doesn't really exist vis a vis the adoptive parents.

The idea that 100,000 dollars in Haiti wouldn't do anything for these kids because they're not well here tells me a hell of a lot about your mindset.

[Meldread]

345. Don't put words into my mouth.

"The use of the word deprived implies some type of obligation which doesn't really exist vis a vis the adoptive parents."

I did use the word deprive. Here is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deprive">what it means: "To keep from possessing or enjoying."

They are deprived of the enjoyment of having children if they give the money they had saved to adopt to the mother. That is completely different from saying that the mother OWES or is somehow OBLIGATED to give the children to the adoptive parents. She is not obligated to do anything.

Scarletwoman said: "So, providing the means for a mother to keep her own children is "depriving" someone else of the opportunity to take those children away from her?"

I was clarifying my statement to her, because that is not what I said or meant to imply at all.

Some people may calculate in their minds that the pain of the biological mother is greater than the pain of the adoptive parents. That's fine, but not knowing their feelings personally I cannot speak to it nor can anyone else. We can only surmise how we might feel in the situation. However, the point is that they could potentially feel pain; as a result of being deprived of the enjoyment / fulfillment / happiness of having a child. Your solution is to hurt one to make the other happy, and my point in bringing it up is to show the silliness in that logic. From what I understand, people completely overlook the feelings of the adoptive parents in favor of the biological mother, thereby making the adoptive parents feelings irrelevant. I do not know if people are intentionally doing it. However, if it is being done on purpose (blatantly saying: 'Their feelings are irrelevant because it isn't their biological child') effectively makes them guilty of the exact same accusations they hurl at the adoptive couple. Which is, at it's heart, insensitivity toward the suffering of another human being.

My position is that there is only one potential way to make both sides happy and one way to ensure "fairness" to both sides.

The "fair" solution would be to ensure that both sides suffer, which would result in the biological mother being forced to put her children up for adoption, and the adoptive couple never having children. This would be bad for the children, as they'd still be at the orphanage. Hopefully, no one would advocate the "fair" solution.

The best solution, which to my knowledge was never offered up once in this entire thread, would have been to allow the biological mother to immigrate to America with her children. She could have lived in the home with the adoptive couple, and all of them together could have raised the children. This has the potential to make all sides happy, and would (in my view at least) be what is truly best for the children.

There is no obligation on the part of the biological mother to give her children to anyone. Neither is there any obligation on the part of the adoptive parents to aid the mother. You can argue the morality of it all, and that's fine. It certainly would have been selfless of the adoptive couple to sacrifice their opportunity to adopt children (and therefore their enjoyment / happiness / fulfillment) to ensure that the biological mother got to keep her children. I am sure everyone would smile at the wonderful story and think of them as wonderful and generous people, and they would have been... but of course, everyone who looks at them that way don't have to sacrifice anything the way they had to - in terms of money and in terms of personal happiness.

So what's my point? It's easy to throw stones at glass houses and judge them for not choosing the most "righteous" path, meanwhile overlooking the fact that they're providing love, support, a home, a family, resources and opportunities that they would have NEVER had in either the orphanage. It completely overlooks the good thing they've done, and attempts to paint them as villains. There is only one villain in the story and that is poverty, the thing that caused the mother to give up her children in the first place.

I would like to see two things from the people who are outraged:

1. Focus the outrage on the villain, poverty, not the adoptive parents because the situation isn't their fault.
2. Back up their outrage with action; help poor mothers keep their children through donation, charity work, or both. It's one thing to be outraged and throw stones, and it's another thing to back it up with action. One is being a hypocrite and the other is walking the walk. Those who are outraged do not have the moral high ground unless they're actively doing something about similar situations.

"The idea that 100,000 dollars in Haiti wouldn't do anything for these kids because they're not well here tells me a hell of a lot about your mindset."

Here is where you really put words into my mouth. First of all, don't presume to know my mindset. I'm being perfectly blunt about my mindset and my thoughts. That's why you're angry - because you don't like it. Don't attempt to read into my words for things that are not there, because I'm being bluntly honest. Second, I never said $100,000 dollars wouldn't help the kids in Haiti. I said they wouldn't receive the same types of opportunities they would in Haiti. They'd still be surrounded by poverty, no matter how wealthy they may be personally, they would still only have access to the resources available to their VERY poor nation. This includes education, sanitation, health care, and job opportunities upon reaching adulthood.

It is blatantly silly to argue that living in Haiti, even if you're wealthy by comparison to everyone else, provides you with better life opportunities than living in the United States.

[uppityperson]

258. After all, is anyone really going to endorse the alternative?"Every $ sent was for selfish reasons."

Every dollar sent to the relief in Haiti was done for selfish purposes, albeit unknowingly. People saw what was happening, and wanted to help in some way. They were rewarded by being allowed to help. They were also rewarded by chemicals in their brain firing off making them "feel good" about their actions. It was that "feel good" feeling that people sought, because without it we would be reduced to anti-social self-absorbed individuals. Also studies have shown that it's equally as good to give as it is to receive gifts.

I agree, that this thread has much in it that is offensive.

[Meldread]

336. Are you saying...

...what I wrote was offensive?

Re: "Every dollar sent to the relief in Haiti was done for selfish purposes, albeit unknowingly. People saw what was happening, and wanted to help in some way. They were rewarded by being allowed to help. They were also rewarded by chemicals in their brain firing off making them "feel good" about their actions. It was that "feel good" feeling that people sought, because without it we would be reduced to anti-social self-absorbed individuals. Also studies have shown that it's equally as good to give as it is to receive gifts."

You find that offensive when it's true? Haven't you ever heard of a "helper's high"? We help others because it makes us "feel good" - that's dopamine (a feel good chemical released in the brain). There are similar releases in the brain when you have sex or when you receive an unexpected gift or prize. Without this release of dopamine humans would be much less disposed to helping others, perhaps even bordering (or outright) anti-social.

We might not like to think of it in those terms, but it doesn't change the facts. We help others because it makes us feel good personally. This makes (in my view at least) it difficult to be truly selfless or altruistic. For example, I wouldn't classify giving money to help those in Haiti as selfless. You receive a reward for doing so (dopamine), but I would classify a mother giving away her child to be adopted by others as selfless as it causes her emotional suffering and personal anguish - she puts the needs of the child above her own personal happiness. The converse would have been true if the couple had given up their hopes of ever raising children and given the money to the mother instead. That would have been selfless, but it also would have caused them emotional suffering and personal anguish.

What I find offensive here in this thread is that the OP has decided to compare what the adoptive parents did to picking out a dog at some shelter. Why should they (the couple) have to experience emotional anguish and the mother not? Why should the mother have to experience emotional anguish and the couple not? Why should we pass judgment on either? No one will deny that the children have a better chance at living a fulfilling and happier life in the United States, and no one will deny that the goal of the mother was achieved. She gave her children up so that they could find a better life elsewhere. Although it no doubt still hurts deeply, there is comfort in knowing that your child is receiving things you could not provide yourself.

[uppityperson]

338. I help others because it is the right thing to do, not for dopamine release

I help others because I have more than enough now, and at times have needed help myself so give back. I don't brag about helping others, which might make me "feel good", but just do it.

I help others because we are all in this together.

I have sex because it feels really good. This is not why I help others though. Your "facts" on why we help each other is personal opinion, subjective not an objective "fact". You don't seem to see altruism as a possibility, unless it is a parent facing death for their child unless they give them up. You are wrong.

What I find offensive in this thread is people picking out one line or bit of the OP, slamming Op on that, and missing the broader point. Having to give up your child that you would love to keep and raise because you are too poor to have them survive with you is WRONG.


"Why should they (the couple) have to experience emotional anguish and the mother not? Why should the mother have to experience emotional anguish and the couple not?" What?

[Meldread]

340. That's how it's rationalized.

It's not an opinion, because we can actually study it. Use Google and search for things like Helper's High, and then go on from there. How you rationalize (psychology) your actions and the chemical and natural reward systems built into your brain (physiology) are two different things. Natural selection determined that humans survived best when we worked together. As a result we evolved an internal reward system designed to promote behavior that increases our chances of survival.

You seem to be taking it as a bad thing, but it's a good thing. My point was that humans by and large are predisposed to help each other because of the natural reward systems in place. If those reward systems were not in place then humans would be less likely to help those in need.

The larger point was somewhat philosophical; can you be selfless in the truest sense of the word if you receive a reward for your actions? That is where my opinion factors into it, and that opinion is no, you cannot be selfless in the truest sense of the word. Can you be nice? Yes, but being nice and being selfless are two different things.

I would say you'd move closer to selflessness if you were very poor and gave all or most of your money to help those in Haiti. Then as a result you had to go without something - food, warmth, something along those lines. If you are wealthy enough to give away money without suffering, how can you then be selfless? You're giving away something extra - something you didn't really need. It's the proverbial equivalent of letting your neighbor have a cup of sugar. It's the equivalent of Michael Bloomberg donating a million dollars to Haiti. Will that million dollars help? Absolutely. Is Michael Bloomberg acting selflessly (by definition putting the needs or desires of others before his own)? No, but it was very nice of him to do.

That then brings us back to where we started the discussion. What motivates us to do "nice" things? It would be the feelings we get when we do it. While you may not rationalize it that way, and therefore believe it is not what motivates you, it still manipulates you to one extent or another to influence your decisions. I can guarantee you with absolute certainty, that if I could switch off this reward system, over time you'd become less likely to help others.

[EFerrari]

307. Can no one read any more?

SW woman did not produce that story segment. I've seen it and others like it. And that IS the vibe they give off. THAT is what is disturbing, not the accurate description of the way the language of dehumanization seeps out in these reports.

[Meldread]

325. I can read just fine.

She compared the adoptive couple to people going to an animal shelter. That is what is offensive.

[EFerrari]

332. She was describing the way the story was told.

I saw that story, too, and she is 100% right.

[pnwmom]

261. Something you're overlooking -- the AVERAGE Haitian family has 5 kids -- that means

many have more.

Maybe we should be promoting birth control rather than encouraging these poor mothers to have even more children.

http://www.ruralhaititeam.org/ruralhaiti/theyard.php

[earth mom]

273. This is exactly what bothered me about Madonna's adoption of children from Malawi.

Except that Madonna is a rich as sin and could well afford to give money to the families of the kids she's adopted so that they could stay with them.

The grandma of the girl she adopted this year called what she's done "stealing".

Yep, both situations strike me as shopping for puppies too. Ugh.

[noamnety]

289. I didn't know til I read the mother jones link above

that the child madonna took had a father who was riding his bike 50 miles round trip weekly to visit the child.

[timtom]

275. You've made an excellent point!

And I agree.

[glowing]

277. Most mother's are the one's who give their children up for adoption and they are alive.

Even in the US its normally due to money or age of mother... So, why bemoan these people. Mother's shouldn't have to sacrifice their children, but it is what it is.

[LisaL]

329. Of course. There are very few "real orphans" who lost

both parents that are available for adoption. It will be the same thing here in US. People give children up because they either are not able or not willing to take care of these children.

[old mark]

278. My brother and his wife adopted twins from an orphanage in the Philippines almost 9 years ago.

The process took a long time and included thorough background checks and interviews, both with the girls and the prospective parents.
They are now entering college, both were honor students through high school.
They are very happy and healthy young women who have opportunities In life they never would have had before.

There are a lot of sides to this.

mark

[DisgustedInMN]

279. Thank you, SW.

Saw the same story and had similar thoughts, and felt a little guilty about it. Less so now that I see I wasn't the only one.

Some of us Americans have a VERY strange view of what real charity is all about, don't we?

[scarletwoman]

281. Thank you for your post.

I appreciate knowing that I wasn't the only one who had these thoughts -- although actually writing them out seems to have upset a lot of people.

Oh well.

sw

[DisgustedInMN]

283. I didn't go through..

... all of the replies. With I saw posts proclaiming their morally "superior" views and taking you to task, I stopped and wanted to give at least one voice in support.

If there's one thing I've found out in my relatively short tenure here, that expressing one's opinion isn't always welcomed, if it doesn't conform. It really surprises me to some degree, that here, of all places, not "toeing the line" is seen as something that needs to stomped out.

Troubling, very, very troubling.

[scarletwoman]

291. Thank you again for so kindly offering your support.

As a long time DUer (almost 9 years!) I'm way past being surprised about how not "towing the line" can sometimes be received here. It actually wasn't that way in the early days, but as DU has grown and expanded, there seems to be a certain hive-mind mentality that's taken hold in many areas.

DUers are no different than any other people; they cherish their opinions and very much dislike having their worldview challenged. :)

sw

[uppityperson]

316. It shows me that accurate communication through the internet can be difficult

It is easy to misunderstand, to misread, to over-react to something that isn't meant. Due to various reasons (instant news in short segments, fast ads, life stresses, etc) reading a long post, sitting and thinking about it, asking for clarification, these are things that can be missing on forums.

Also, it is easy to play someone else on the internets, and to not act like you may in person. All these contribute, IMO, to threads like this.

No, we don't all "toe the line". You will learn whom to read, whom to not bother with, sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Taking time to read, contemplate, ask, reply is good. Taking time to double check before being offended is also good. I am guilty of not doing so, most of us are.

[kwassa]

321. Your real problem is that you don't know how adoption works.

You speak from absolute ignorance about the world of adoption. Why do I say this? I am an adoptive parent. The scenario you outlined in the OP is true of every adoption everywhere in the world, including domestic adoptions in the United States. A poor woman who can't support her child for sometimes simple poverty or for a variety of other pressures agrees to give up her child in order that this child have a better life.

The scenario is universal. Unless you can alleviate poverty around the world, this scenario will continue to exist, and there will children needing parents. There is nothing unique about Haiti in this.

What has happened all too often in this country is that parents who can't take care of their children will not relinquish their rights, and put their kids in the foster care system, which often does a very poor job of taking care of them. As the kids age, they become less adoptable in the eyes of many, and spend their entire childhood in foster care.

What is amazing to me is that you persist in your idea in the face of a number of people in this thread who disagree with you who have firsthand experience or considerably more knowledge than you do on the subject. You know nothing about the mother who gave up her child, for instance. I've met the birth-mother of my child, and we are open to future contact with her as well. Many adoptive parents that go overseas do, as well, unless the child has already been placed in an orphanage.

Virtually all new adoptions are open adoptions to one degree or another. This means that adoptive children will have access to records of who their birth parents are, if these records exist. If that child wishes to seek out the uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. they will be able to do so.

[scarletwoman]

326. No, it's not my "real problem" because my OP isn't about the topic of adoptions.

It's about imperialism, inequity, media imagery, and the self-serving meta-narrative of the First World in relation to the Third World.

[LisaL]

327. Gee. Then you really fooled me and many others.

If you wanted other posters to think you are discussing imperialism, inequity, media imagery, and the self-serving meta-narrative of the First World in relation to the third World, you shouldn't have started off with the adoption story.
:eyes:

[scarletwoman]

331. That's not my problem, either. Plenty of people on this thread "got it" without needing any help. nt

[kwassa]

341. no, you just keep moving the goalposts away from your OP

You really show no integrity in this thread.

[scarletwoman]

343. Again, some people "got it" from the very start. Those who didn't were hell-bent to twist it into

something it was not.

I cannot help how you perceive what I've said, or what you project on me as a result. Nor do I feel obligated to answer to accusations based on misinterpretations of my OP.

You have not been prevented in any way from having your say, be satisfied with that.

[kwassa]

346. The people who "got" it don't understand the world of adoption.

As you don't.

[scarletwoman]

348. The people who "got it" understood that it WASN'T about "the world of adoption".

Here's a thought. If you want a thread on "the world of adoption", start one yourself, because this thread was never intended to be that. And I promise you I won't post on it.

[Tailormyst]

354. As an adoptee, I am forever grateful that their are people like you.

[flyarm]

280. Children missing from hospitals after quake, sparking trafficking fears

From France
Children missing from hospitals after quake, sparking trafficking fears
Source: afp

AFP - Children have gone missing from hospitals in Haiti since the devastating earthquake struck, raising fears of trafficking for adoption abroad, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) said Friday.

"We have documented let's say around 15 cases of children disappearing from hospitals and not with their own family at the time," said UNICEF adviser Jean Luc Legrand.

"UNICEF has been working in Haiti for many years and we knew the problem with the trade of children in Haiti which existed already beforehand, and unfortunately many of these trade networks have links with the international adoption 'market'," Legrand explained.
...
Trafficking networks were springing into action immediately after the disaster and taking advantage of the weakness of local authorities and relief coordination "to kidnap children and get them out of the country," Legrand told journalists.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20100122-children-missing-hospitals-earthquake-trafficking-haiti-unicef

[tblue37]

292. Madonna and David Banda from Malawi. nt

[LibertyLover]

295. I'm the white, adoptive parent of a little girl from China and

one thing our adoption agency stressed is eventually we will have to answer our daughter's questions about her adoption. The problem that we will have to work around is that our little girl was abandoned by her birth family who, in all likelihood, already had one girl at home and desperately wanted a boy. There is a better than average chance that my daughter has siblings both in China and perhaps even here in America. She was abandoned because her family didn't want to feed her and raise another girl. We have also been told by our pediatrician that by removing her from the pollution in China we have probably added between 7 and 10 years to her life. So, tell me, am I supposed to feel guilty that I've been given the opportunity to be a mother because economic concerns and governmental policies forced her birth parents to abandon my daughter, ecomonic problems and policies I have no control over? And yes, she was, and is, cute as a puppy and twice as inquisitive.

[scarletwoman]

296. Then bless you and bless your family for taking in a genuinely unwanted child.

[mnhtnbb]

297. The real problem is the lack of access to birth control in poor countries

Thank the Catholic Church in Haiti.

[scarletwoman]

300. Yes it is. I completely agree.

"Thank the Catholic Church in Haiti." Indeed.

[maryf]

301. K&R nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

304. That's gross.

Thanks, scarletwoman - I didn't know about this story.

You'd think some of this deluge of aid that's been donated, could go to helping people like this mother. It would be good if a follow-up story could find her, and do something about this. Of course, I doubt that will happen.

I agree, this is very disturbing!

But then, I feel like a lot of our citizens get treated the same way. We get rolled-over just like the Haitians, even without a disaster - that's why I feel so much empathy for what they're going through. All of us "un-privileged" people are treated like dirt.

And it's not just by "the system", it's from individuals too - I too, especially dislike that the adoptive parents don't mind benefitting from this poor mother's desperation. How cold-blooded!

[crikkett]

312. Wow. Good job calling out Imperialist "compassion" as it was framed by NBC

My own mother abandoned me to my stepfather because she was unfit. I don't think any assistance would have made her a good mother, and I've since forgiven her.

The Haitian mother did right by her kids, who are certain to have a better life with their new American parents.

I agree though, that NBC tends to frame stories in a way that brings out the Ugly in 'Ugly American'.

[Skip Intro]

314. What does the color of the skin of the adoptive parents have to do with anything? nt

[EFerrari]

319. It has little to do with that family. It has everything to do with

mostly white "First World" nations power over "Third World" nations of color that is often rationalized as "for their own good".

There's more than one thing going on here.

[flyarm]

323. +1..yes indeed! eom

[Desertrose]

318. I hope she survived the earthquake!!!

Although I can't imagine her pain having to give up your children cause you can't take care of them.
This is so sad.....



"...the babies went on the market, and the happy consumers swooped in and picked up a bargain."
(The American Way of Life)



:hi: SW :hug:

[scarletwoman]

328. Hi DR!

Welcome to my modest little thread -- I seem to have upset a great many people with my OP. Not at all my intention, of course, but it's been very interesting.

I hope the mother survived also, though I wonder if there'll be any way to know. Beyond that, I hope that real and longterm restructuring and reform takes hold in Haiti and changes conditions substantially for the better so that no more Haitian mothers are faced with the grim choice of giving up their children or seeing them starve.

:hi: DR :hug:

[tblue]

335. Big K&R! As a mom, I think there could be almost nothing worse.

I would honestly rather be dead. Oh, my heart breaks. Thank you for "getting it." And for sharing. :cry: I'm sure they miss their mommy, too!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

352. I get what you are saying and have been bothered by it a bit, too.

There is something very sad and wrong about a child who is wanted by the parent (or both) but must be given up because of poverty. :(

I saw a news report about a woman whose husband (and the family breadwinner) was killed in the quake and she was left with 5 small children and no income. I immediately thought a solution would be "adoption" of the entire family. I hope their are orgs out there setting a program like that up.

[Tailormyst]

353. I find being called a "puppy" offensive.

I am a person, I am a human being. Both my mothers love me. One loved me enough to give me up. The other loved me enough to bring me up.