Okay, the provocative title alone makes me hate the article. Under siege. Sigh. A precious fortress under attack (by whom? "Angry adoptees? Ha!)
Anyway, although in general I disliked this article, I thought this part was interesting, to say the least.
Anyway, I can't resolve the battle of
competing rights — the right to a family, your original family, a
loving home, a secure permanent setting, etc. Everyone seems to agree
explicitly that "there is no right to adopt, only the right of the child to be adopted,"
but the reality is that the demand generated by adoptive parents is one
of the driving forces in this arena — and that includes their money.
(As Bartholet points out, of course, that also means international
adoption is a way of helping children without government spending.)
Ironically, although many advocates for
children are adoptive parents, I am starting to get the feeling that if
policy is going to be true to that premise — children's rights, not
adoptive parents' rights — then the adoptive parents shouldn't be in
the room when the policy is written. In other words, the humanitarian
impulse, at least ideally, could be the foundation of public policy —
but we can't expect it to be the motivation for adoptive parents any
more than it is for birth parents.
Cross posted from the Family Inequality blog.