October 18, 2006

Why Madonna's Adoption Critics Are Wrong



I am just as suspicious of Madonna's motives for adopting a Malawi boy as all the critics out there, but I am even more suspicious of the "human rights" activists who are trying to stop the adoption. And as the critics' arguments are gaining currency--I'm hearing more people say, "Why doesn't Madonna just give her money to the Malawi boy's father to raise him?"--I worry that will affect all international adoptions.
The argument against Madonna's adoption is that it's better for Malawi kids to stay in Malawi and be adopted by locals, and Madonna is using her wealth to bend the rules. Now this is a variation of the argument that opponents of international adoption--which includes Save the Children officials--have been using.

Here is why they're wrong.
1. There are one million orphans in Malawi, a desperately poor country with a population of 12 million. There simply aren't enough Malawi citizens on sound economic footing to adopt these kids. It's not like Madonna cut the line--there is no line. Does anyone think this kid will be better off in a Malawi orphanage, even if Madonna is a craven publicity hound?
2. "Human rights" activists have shut down international adoptions in many countries, including Romania, because they say foreigners were "buying" babies. Is there corruption in these overseas adoptions? No doubt , as most of these developing nations have corrupt governments, where cash "tips" to the local official are not uncommon. And that's why it is so important that countries implement the Hague Treaty, the international treaty meant to make the process more transparent.
But shutting down international adoptions won't help these kids because the vast majority of people who adopt internationally are like me--people who just wanted to parent a child who needs a home.
3. As for the question, why doesn't Madonna just give money to the Malawi kid's father to raise him? That's the same question my bio daughter asked me when I told her my husband and I were thinking of adopting a baby from an orphanage in Kazakhstan. My daughter was 5 at the time.
What I told her was: we are giving money to support orphanages, but that the birth parents already decided they couldn't raise this baby (now our daughter) and gave her to the orphanage upon birth. This Malawi boy's father didn't leave the kid there temporarily. He decided he couldn't parent. If he had more money, would he be able to be the kind of parent he needed to be? That's a big question. So many people who give up their kids for adoption do so because they are living in the margins--physical and mental illnesses, drug addictions, crime, etc.
Also : That question assumes that kids are always better off with their bio parents, and it is a deep insult to parents of the one million adopted kids living in the US today.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

posted by pam at 11:24 AM 3 comments links to this post

 
   
 

Copyright 2006 Pamela Kruger. All rights Reserved.
This material may not be reprinted in any form without permission from the author.

 Contact Pamela Kruger »