You know I could be working
Jul 10, 2005 Adoption
I blame my blog for my inability to get anything done around here. (Not me, mind you, for not being able to resist its siren song.)
Marla said (referencing the post below about our window guy): “I am not against gay parents adopting, but am displeased that these parents disrespected China and broke their rules (China does not allow gays to adopt.)”
OK, let’s discuss.
My first reaction to this was, “Yeah? So? It’s a stupid, prejudiced rule and who cares if someone breaks it?” But see, Marla is a really thoughtful, kind woman. If she feels this way, she’s got good reason. Me, I’m knee-jerking it so I’m willing to step back and reconsider.
China, of course, is not the only country with a rule stipulating that only heterosexuals can adopt. Haiti and Guatemala are others. There are also agencies who make people sign a statement of faith and if you’re not Christian, you’ve either got to pretend or convert right quick. So what do you think of this?
If you truly felt in your heart that your child was someplace you could reach only by lying, would you lie? To a country? To an agency? To a woman making an adoption plan? (My answers: maybe, maybe, no.) Why? Why not? What would you think of someone who did lie? To a country? To an agency? To a woman making an adoption plan? (My answers: whatever, whatever, oh no you didn’t!)
Lemme know what you think; I’d like to hear it.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Hi Dawn
I wanted to weigh in on this issue…though I will say that it is a very emotional issue for many people and I hope what I am about to say will be heard in the manner I am trying to say it.
I, like Marla, am not against gays adopting and in our country (USA) I think it is a travesty that gays have any problems adopting since our constitution guarantees equal rights and treatment.
However, when people are looking at International Adoption, I think one of the most important things that needs to happen (on the adopters part) is to respect the process, rules and regulations that each country requires. For example, taking a hopefully less hot button topic, Korea will not allow overweight people to adopt. They have a weight chart that you must fit in to qualify for their program. If you are too overweight, you will be rejected. Is this abitrary?, yup it is. But since Korea should have final say over who they want adopting their orphaned citizens…my feeling is if you don’t like their rules, find a different sending country.
To give another example which may fit in better to your particular blog…what about adoptive parents who really really want to adopt domestically and can only do so by promising to be part of an open adoption, but they are LYING and never intend to honor that promise. With the reasoning you used in your post, it would be ok for them to lie, because they felt that the requirement was stupid, not helpful or whatever…and that they felt the child this particular potential birth mother was carrying was “meant” for them. In most states, open adoptions are not enforceable, so the birthparents probably wouldn’t have any recourse (much like sending countries don’t have any recourse after the adoption is completed) but I don’t think that many people would consider the adoptive parents actions justified…and they might even think the adoptive parents were coercive/stole a person’s baby from them by promising one thing and delivering something completely different (knowing from the get-go that that was what they planned to do).
Bottom line for me, is that each sending country should have ultimate say in how their children are placed and what their particular rules and regulations will be. To decide unilaterally to break another country’s rule because we think they are stupid and prejudiced to to practice a rather nasty, “liberal” form of paternalism (i.e., we know how to live better or the “right” thing to do, but instead of trying to change the laws of the sending country by conversation/negiotation/etc…we are just going to circumvent those laws that we don’t agree with - because you know we’re right and they are wrong). It also seems to smack of White Privilege/1st world privilege since each country you listed are sending countries of color/developing countries. If you have that many issues with the sending country you are looking at, I think you need to resolve your issues, or find another sending country.
And quite frankly, I also feel slightly uncomfortable with people saying that their child is in a country whose regulations would prevent them form adopting honestly. Why do they feel that strongly about that country? If they do feel a connection with that country…what is that connection and why do they think their connection should outweigh following rules/regulations? Is it in part because they don’t agree with the rules of law in that country? Are they trying to “save” a child (always a horrible reason for adopting in my opinion) from living in a way that they think is unacceptable? I don’t know the answers to these questions…but they are what come to mind when I hear about people talking about the fact that they adopted from a country that wouldn’t have let them, but they were able to “work the system”.
I will be interested in hearing other people’s views on this topic.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
What about the lesbian of color originall from the country in question? I would say such an individual would have an excellent reason for choosing to adopt from said country.
I personally couldn’t bring myself to risk giving false impressions of myself in order to adopt. Being discovered would quite likely jeopardize any future attempts to adopt anywhere else.
That said, I think it is completely horrid that other countries (including our own) do so much to bar queer families from adoption. That’s a personal feeling, one coming from my own experience as a queer woman of color: it’s hard to face yet another area of life where my family is considered second class. Regardless of how I feel, I don’t feel it is my place as an American to force other countries to allow gay families/ individuals to adopt. That’s quite paternalistic, especially considering the U.S. government is hardly a paragon of equality when it comes to gay families itself.
I think this is an entitlement issue. Unfortunately, some segments of our population simply are not allowed the same feelings of entitlement as others.
July 10th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Uhm, what chicagomama said. Word for word.
July 10th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
I used to make blanket statements such as “I would never lie,” or, in this case, “I would always follow the rules of the country.” I think one must look at each adoption situation individually, and rely upon more general principles. For instance, some could look at the sheer number of unwanted Chinese girls (who are in danger of being murdered in some cases) and see it as a crisis in which lying is permissable morally. That is, because the Chinese government doesn’t have the interests of families and children at heart, one must break their rules so that their girls will have homes. I’m not exactly making this argument–but the point is that there are some circumstances under which committing a lesser evil (lying, in this case) might be the only way to save a life. This is obviously very dangerous territory, as our country continues to justify horrible wars and invasions with ‘human rights,’ ostensibly to save lives. The pacifist me would say that killing to save lives is not justifiable, and that although falsehood is a form of violence too, it is in rare cases called for. In rare cases. I cannot emphasize that enough.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
Chicagomama, I’m not trying to start antything but saying “With the reasoning you used in your post, it would be ok for them to lie” is wrong because Dawn clearly said that it’s NEVER O.K. to lie to a potential birthmother.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Hi Cheryl
Yup, I noticed that after I posted…why can’t I ever get to the end of a blog message without having missed something *that* important? (and I didn’t look at your comment as “trying to start something
) But, even though Dawn says she would never lied to a birthmother and that it is wrong, I still think the analogy stands…because I also think that none of us would question most arbitrary “rules” that birthmothers want to use when requesting potential adoptive parent files. If a birthmother said she didn’t want a homosexual couple adopting her child, I don’t think any of us would think that she shouldn’t get to make that choice. or if she wanted a family with no other children, or a family with other children. My only point, which I still stand by, is that any international sending country should have the same rights to make arbitrary decisions about the kind of parents they want to adopt their children. Will a birthmother who wants a pet free home for her child be losing out on some really great families? Yes, but if that is really important to her (no matter how silly or “prejudiced” pet owners may feel this is) her choice. Orphaned children are wards of the State, and the State in effect is the parent. Why are we trying to say (maybe) that there is a distinction between a potential birthmother making arbitrary choices (which we may or may not agree with) and a sending country?
July 10th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Yes - I could probably lie to a country. I wouldn’t be comfortable with it and I would have to do a lot of soul searching about it before I did it. But yes I could see doing it in certain very specific circumstances.
No - I wouldn’t lie to a birth mother.
Why? Two very different relationships. That word is also important, I don’t believe that I can have a relationship with a country. For me, it is not a way that I would describe myself.
For me the lying to a country falls into the grey area that makes up so much of my real life and lying to a birthmother is a black and white thing.
Arbitrary and personal? Oh yeah.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Eh. After a long weekend, I don’t have a lot of energy to get into a debate but I have to make a few tiny comments for the record.
A) I think that we need to be very careful when we are talking about things like “the sheer number of unwanted Chinese girls (who are in danger of being murdered in some cases)” because we are talking about ADOPTION here, not adopting to SAVE A CHILD. There is a vast and significant difference between the two. For the record, I don’t believe there are really significantly more children available for adoption in China than in the US, the media just likes to make it look that way. Oprah can bite my ass with all her “save those poor chinese baby girls” bullshit. Perpetuating those stereotypes of Chinese people as baby girl murderers doesn’t do my children or the abandoned children in china any favors.
B) I respectfully disagree with both Marla and Chicagomama (both of whom I ‘know’ from around the net.) I personally think that lying to a government and lying to a birthmother are very different things. I would (in my own fairly flexible moral code) equate adopting as a lesbian from china to a minor act of civil disobedience. To me, there is a big difference between that and lying to someone (a birthmother) who is making the decision to place his or her own flesh and blood with someone. To me, there isn’t much diffence between lying to adopt as a lesbian and lying to have an out-of-quota baby, sneaking around to make an illegal adoption plan (abandonment and/or informal adoption) which most of the chinese birth parents most likely did.
To me, the right to get pregnant, have a baby, decide to parent or not, all of those are basic human rights. I can’t get all wound up about the morals of lying to a government that systematically strips half a million women of those basic human rights.
50 years ago my (interracial) marriage would have been illegal in a number of states, but you can be damn sure that if I felt that A was the one for me, we would be married even if we had to cheat by going out of state to do it.
I could go on, but I am too tired.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Uh, I meant systematically strips away the rights of half a BILLION women. Big difference there. Sorry.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I know of two sides of this in a way. We have friends who adopted from China. He had 3 children from his first marriage, she had no children. The agency told China they had no children, because of they had no children of their marriage. White lie, but still against the rules.
I have another friend who is a birthmother, she placed her child 19 years ago. She was and is a devout Catholic. She told the agency she wanted her child to go to a religous family, any religion, with the exception of Mormons. She had grown up in a Mormon area and held her own biases against them. Her daughter found her last year, and you guessed it had been raised in a strict Mormon family. It broke Jeannie’s heart just a little to hear the one condirion she asked of the agency hadn’t been honored. She is eased by the fact that her daughter is wonderful and so is the family she became a part of. However in my opinion the agency was still wrong.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Not being an adoptive or relinquishing birth mom, my opinion may be considered less than truly informed. But I do know a *little* about adoption in that I’m married to a man who was the first interracial adoption in Chicago, and he relinquished a son to adoption before we married.
I would say that lying to adopt is just plain wrong. Not only should adoptive parents have respect for the laws and values of the foreign country that is permitting them to adopt its children, but they should also take into account that lying to that country may result in more difficult adoptions for future parents, or even the end of the possibility for Americans to adopt from that country. Considering all the concerns about unethical situations in foreign adoptions (possible baby-selling, etc.), we should at least hold up our end and be ethical on our part of it.
Lying to an agency is not dissimilar to lying to the birth mother. If a birth mother does not want an open adoption, but has particular wishes for her child (that he/she be raised in a Christian, or Catholic, or some other specific moral-religious context), she can seek out an agency that is in line with her values and wishes for her child. When potential adoptive parents lie to the agency, they are disrespecting and disregarding that birth mother’s parting wish and effort for her child. And again, this may make future adoptions more difficult, as agencies have to make more stringent screenings and home studies and background checks. All man-hours that must be paid for by prospective adoptive parents in the form of higher fees, and longer waits.
I really feel that this question, whether it’s okay to lie to adopt, is a poorly-cloaked version of the question, “Does the end justify the means?” I think the answer is practically always “no”. No matter how badly we want a child, I don’t think we have a right to resort to unethical means to obtain one, whether that’s black-market adoption, emotionally extorting a birth mother, or lying to circumvent the wishes and moral values of the birth mother or the home country of the child. And if that ethical obligation fails to move us, we should at least think of the adoptive parents that may come after us, and not do things that will make their journey to parenthood more difficult than it already is.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:03 am
Quick answer:
I agree with your “yes, yes, no” pattern of answers, for the most part, but I’m glad we didn’t HAVE to do this. I’m sad for people who do have to lie to get their kids.
Now I’ll go read the rest.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Another thought -
How often do agencies/governments, domestic or int’l. lie to us?
These can be the lies of omission or that happen because of ineptitude, miscommunication, policy changes, disinterest, change in staff, staff burnout, power tripping etc. etc.
In the seven months we have been in process, it has happened to us any number of times. Not a good situation for building trust.
Another thought - (thanks to everyone for posting and stimulating my brain!)- I really don’t see any government as being capable of accurately being able to express the wishes or moral values of their entire country. It is too open to interpretation and personal opinion of the people setting the policies and the people interpreting them.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:28 am
Heart said:
“No matter how badly we want a child, I don’t think we have a right to resort to unethical means to obtain one, whether that’s black-market adoption, emotionally extorting a birth mother, or lying to circumvent the wishes and moral values of the birth mother or the home country of the child.”
Whoa! Black market adoption is morally equivalent to lying to CHINA?
In the first place, I must object to the idea that countries have moral values. Chinese WOMEN are not saying “I don’t want my daughter raised by lesbians” now, are they? They have no choice in the matter of who parents their children whatsoever. China doesn’t have moral values. Only individual Chinese people do and the policies that lead women to place daughters for adoption do not necessarily reflect the individual morals of individual Chinese people. In fact, generally estimating, ten percent of Chinese women are lesbians themselves. And sadly, we will never really know much about what those birthmothers really want for their daughters.
I agree with sster’s distinction based on relationship. In fact, most of my ethical decisions get decided based on relationship. The Chinese government is not an entity with which I can have a relationship and therefor, to some degree, is not really an entity to which I can be said to lie in a moral sense of lying being an unethical act.
In fact, those Chinese women secretly placing their babies for adoption are lying to the Chinese government, aren’t they? So should their “ends” of finding a safe home for their daughters also not justify their “means” of lying to an oppressive government?
An awful lot of Chinese people have given their lives to change the policies of the Chinese government in a number of ways. I think weighing the morality of a government’s policies when deciding the ethics of lying to that government is absolutely appropriate.
The reason I wouldn’t want to lie to a government to adopt has much more to do with the pain of lying about who my family truly is. Hiding and lying are major evils for queers and I am glad we didn’t have to do it.
If we lived in a different state where the kind of adoption we chose was not possible for us, I think we would have lied to go international. Why do straight people think they have the corner on entitlement to parent, “just because” it’s in their hearts to do so?
July 11th, 2005 at 2:33 am
I don’t agree with lying at all for any reason. Why would someone want to start the joining of a child into their family based on a lie? And how do you explain to your child that you lied to adopt? How then do you explain to your child when he/she should NOT lie?
I want my family to be based on honesty and with morals. I would never lie to an agency nor a country to adopt. If I don’t fit their rules, I would have to look elsewhere. I don’t want my life to be a lie, nor do I want my child’s life to be a part of my lie.
I want to respect the country that we are adopting our child from and I would never think of lying to them. I am forever grateful to them and will follow their rules to bring my daughter home.
July 11th, 2005 at 5:09 am
I ment to come back sooner to try to write down the thought that’s been floating in my head. The reason that I feel that it’s morally acceptable to lie to “The Man” is because we are never going to change this world for the better if we always follow the rules (”If I don’t fit their rules, I would have to look elsewhere”). Think about where this country might be if Rosa Parks had followed the rules and gone to the back of the bus.
Imagine if Dawn or Shannon hadn’t been able to adopt their daughters based on Madison and Nat’s skin color. We wouldn’t stand for it and so change would occur. Now since we are dealing with a country other than our own we can’t rise up and force that change. The more babies that are adopted into this country the easier it is going to be for future adoptive parents and the quicker this type of discrimination will fall by the wayside.
It’s very late and I’m not sure if that made any sense, I’ll have to re-read it tomorrow to find out, LOL.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:50 am
What shannon said, no question at all.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:39 am
I woke up this morning thinking about this: I think it is very funny when people get all revved up about not threatening the status of those who are already privileged. You know, like “Those lesbians shouldn’t adopt from china because it could threaten the possibility that WE STRAIGHT PEOPLE could adopt from there!” I stand by my earlier civil disobedience statement. Sometimes if people don’t give you your rights, it is justified to take them. We aren’t talking about child molesters adopting here, we are talking about happy, intact families who happen to be getting screwed by multiple governments.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Playing devil’s advocate here, though — the possibility does exist, given the nature of China’s government, that if their (granted, arbitrary & unfair) rules are too frequently circumvented and they discover this, there is certainly the possibility of the nature of adoption from China changing and becoming even more arbitrary and strict. (I don’t see them shutting down the program for something like this, although that is the argument most frequently heard here). So while I don’t have a problem with it in the least (gay and lesbian parents adopting from China), I do wonder about the repercussions of what the Chinese officials might see as systematic failure of their system.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:06 am
To me, lying to an agency would be a “no”, particularly in the case of a non-open adoption, because of the likelihood that the agency is relaying the birth mother’s wishes. And even if the birth-mother were against gay couples adopting her child, she would have the right for this condition to be respected.
As for lying to a country such as China… I have spent some time in China (teaching English), and while I would *never* call myself a cultural expert, when I was there I found a high proportion of people were anti-homosexuality. So while I agree that an anti-gay policy on the part of a country is absurd and discriminatory, and asking the Chinese birth-mothers would be infinitely better, it is quite likely that this anti-gay feeling is shared by many birth parents. So while I would not say “no” outright to lying to a country (as I would to a birthmother or agency acting on her behalf), I would have a hard time saying “yes”.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
I have a very simple moral code and would not break it to get my way to adopt from a specific country. I see people calling these rules arbitrary and suggesting they don’t reflect the feelings of the birthmother, I say, it’s their rules, and their right to make the rules. If you don’t like those rules, that’s what is called “not a good fit” and your cue to look elsewhere. It’s not like most or even half the sending countries have these rules, so what is the problem? Unless one really believes that just because they are part of a minority that they should have special rights and no one should be allowed to say no to them. I am overweight and therefore could not adopt from Korea. Am I going to kick and fuss because I feel I have rights as a fat person? No. Sheesh. I’m just looking at other countries who have more reasonable criteria.
Sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense… still working on that first cup of tea.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
However, being overweight is a choice. Would you say it was okay for China to not allow blacks or hispanics to adopt? Because that is how I think about sexual orientation, like race, not like being overweight.
I would never lie to a birthmother, or even my agency. I think it depends on the lie with another country. I would look at the culture and context, and see if whatever my lie was would violate cutural norms or just government red tape. I am glad I was never faced with this decison personally.
To those who have lied to a country I think it’s not my place to judge them. To those who have lied to a birthmother, I would urge them to come clean and rectify the situation.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
The civil disobedience argument interests me. Can we choose to resist unjust systems that are not our own by flouting them? Or is that inherently disrespectful of another country/culture? It seems to me, with so much discrimination within the world of domestic adoption, that if you really want to effect change, that’s the place to start.
Dawn, thank you for providing such a safe place to really wrestle with these ethical issues. Adoption’s such a sticky business, isn’t it?
July 11th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and reading the comments with interest. As always, I love the discussions you generate, Dawn.
I wouldn’t judge a family for lying to a government in order to adopt, certainly not for lying about sexual orientation. (Birth mother - totally different story - absolutely shouldn’t be done.) But I do think that if I had ended up with a woman partner, I would have chosen a route to adoption that wouldn’t have necessitated lying.
That said, I think many of us omit certain facts about our lives when adopting to make the process go more smoothly. I didn’t tell the social worker about my past relationships with women, or about the fact that my mom is gay. I know of people who don’t reveal the fact that they are still trying to conceive. For many years, China was not so explicit about not letting lesbians adopt. Indeed, many, many lesbians adopted from China as “single” women without having to actually lie. They just omitted the fact that they may not actually be single. But in the last few years, China is more explicit about their policy, and any lesbian (or gay man) would have to lie outright and deny their homosexuality. I think there’s a big difference between the “lies” prior to the policy change, and those that happen now. And truly, I think many fewer lesbians are adopting from China now because of this change.
Which is a big fucking shame if you ask me.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Wow. I just came back here, not expecting such a great discussion about this particular issue (oh, and thanks Dawn for the kind words). I don’t have much energy for what I’d like to say, but my thinking is along the lines of chi.mama.
Two thoughts: China could, at any time, stop single adoptions, or adoptions altogether due to feeling disrespected by the receiving country. In other words, if they feel we are giving them the finger because we think their policy sucks (and it does) they can take away the priviledge we have to adopt (and yes, I have a lot of gratitude that this country– a very prideful country– opened up themselves to IA to begin with.) If we really want change we should start with our our country first and set an example.
Second thought– the adoptee will probably come to learn that her parents lied to her birth country to get her. How will the adoptee feel about that? Honored? Saved? Distrustful? Will the ends justify the means? I don’t know… but I am very aware of the importance of being honest with my daughter about her life so that she will trust me during the difficult times.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Just to be clear… I don’t think adoptive parents should lie to the sending country about the other requirements as well, not just sexuality.
And yes, China adoption discriminates against homosexuals. And yes, domestic adoption discriminates often against older couples (ageism) (2 private attorneys and one agency told us not to bother due to our age alone). And yes, birthmothers discriminate against potential adoptive parents for many reasons. And yes, adoption is a business. And yes, adoption is not always fair. (This is said without hostility or sarcasism…perhaps unsettled resignation.)
July 11th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Shari says:
“It’s not like most or even half the sending countries have these rules, so what is the problem? Unless one really believes that just because they are part of a minority that they should have special rights and no one should be allowed to say no to them.”
In fact, Shari, every sending country I know of has the “no gay singles or couples” rule, explicity or implicitly. And enough states make it very difficult or impossible for gay singles and/or couples to adopt that depending on where you live, you can’t just choose another way. In fact, there are lots of gay-headed families fighting hard to be allowed to adopt children no one else wants, and the state (Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, recently, almost Texas) is fighting hard to keep those children parentless.
We were very blessed to be able to be 100% ourselves and 100% honest with everyone–from the agencies to the state to our daughter’s birthmother–about ourselves and our adoption. Not everyone is so blessed.
The language of “special rights” comes directly from the antigay rights movement. It was coined in Colorado when my partner was teaching there and fighting to keep an anti-discrimination law on the books that opponents called “special rights.” Perhaps you know about this, but if you don’t, please be aware that you are using exceptionally hostile language which glbt people hear as a rather direct attack on their equal citizenship claims in this country.
I fear that for SOME people, this “moral” argument making lying some kind of black-and-white issue is just a way to conceal homophobic anti-gay adoption feelings in a less offensive guise.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:07 am
LisaV said: “However, being overweight is a choice.”
Oh, no. I beg to differ. Just as I have known some gay people who have “decided” to go straight, I know there are many people out there (myself included) who cannot seem to lose weight no matter what they do. My doctor says the only answer left is to cut me open and remove part of my stomach. What if doctors discovered an operation to “fix” being gay?
My point is that people can believe whatever they want about being fat or being gay (choice or biology). It doesn’t change the fact that a sending country has their own culture, their own rules and requirements for their children and potential adoptive parents, and I feel very strongly that other cultures should be respected and allowed to exist whether we think they make sense or not. No one culture should be allowed to say what works the best and what other cultures/countries should do. Maybe it would be better for the child’s identity formation if you chose a sending country that better matched your own philosophy.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:47 am
Shari,
Do you know what Chinese “philosophy” on children is? Do you think that straight North Americans who adopt Chinese children are carefully raising them according to Chinese philosophy? Or is it just being gay that puts parents in this category of people who fail to respect other cultures and allow them to exist?
I am trying to remain calm over here, while I read right through the lines (your gay friends who have chosen to “go straight” for example) of your writing and see, not respect for China (or any other culture or country) but lack of respect or compassion for families with fewer choices and less power than you.
July 12th, 2005 at 2:57 am
First of all, I would like to say that my use of the term “special rights” was in no way intended to be hostile. I apologize to anyone I offended with that term.
I’m afraid I made the mistake of answering the question posed, namely, is lying okay in this particular instance, and then tried to qualify it. I would like to rectify that right now. My answer is that lying is not okay, no ifs, ands or qualifiers.
Shannon, I’m afraid I don’t understand the following: “I am trying to remain calm over here, while I read right through the lines (your gay friends who have chosen to “go straight” for example) of your writing and see, not respect for China (or any other culture or country) but lack of respect or compassion for families with fewer choices and less power than you.” … and therefore cannot respond to it.
This will be my last comment here about this as I only meant to say I don’t agree with lying and don’t want to exacerbate a heated discussion that no one asked for. However, if anyone feels the need, they may e-mail me at shari 7 at gmail dot com (no spaces). I wish you all a good night!
July 12th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Ok, so this is a totally different issue than lying about a potential adoptive parent’s sexual orientation, but one reason why transracial adoption is so tricky is because it is very difficult to just have a cut and dry answer like “I feel very strongly that other cultures should be respected and allowed to exist whether we think they make sense or not…Maybe it would be better for the child’s identity formation if you chose a sending country that better matched your own philosophy.
”
For example, in china the right to get pregnant and have children (you need a permit before you can get knocked up in most cases) is a cultural feature that I do not and can not respect. You could argue that it is not the culture but rather the government, but I strongly believe that you would be wrong. After 30 years of the one child policy, government control of reproduction is an ingrained given to most Chinese adults of childbearing age.
Another factor in modern day Chinese culture is (repressive, corrupt) communism. Sure, modern day chinese communism is pretty damn capitalist, but you don’t see many American families who have adopted from china reading a lot of Marx & Mao despite the fact that most Chinese kids have this drilled into them as they are growing up. They prefer to gloss over one of the single most defining movements in modern Chinese history and instead have their kids take traditional chinese dance classes (which no one in china does any more).
Transcultural adoption is all about picking and choosing what parts of the sending culture is fit to be integrated into the adoptive family’s.
Chinese kids raised here will be CHinese American, not Chinese. I suspect they will have more in common with Second (or later) generation Asian Americans than Chinese from china. I really doubt having gay parents will have a negative impact on their RACIAL identity formation. It is just apples and oranges.
I think what the comments here show is that some people have a very strict understanding of rules and ethics and others of us have a more flexible idea about it. Ah, diversity in action!
July 12th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I think those with more “flexible ideas” about the rules may put the program at risk. Will the ends justify the means then? Maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Like Shannon, I just don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice.So to me it is different than struggling with a diet.
Amber, beautifully said.
July 12th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Hey Dawn,
As always you have raised a very interesting issue that has made me think and rethink. I would definitely lie to an agency with little or no remorse about certain issues. I would withhold information about my sexuality if I had to get my child from another country. I would not lie about my religion but i would withhold info if I had to. I would never ever ever lie to a birthmom/first mom. She has the right to know exactly where her child will be placed and with what kind of people. I would also lie to an agency if they seemed anti-co sleeping or anti-anti-vax. Again, I would not lie to a birthmom/first mom ever. I guess in the end though I would not adopt through an agency or from a country if I felt I would have to lie or withhold info.
July 13th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
A lie is a lie.
July 13th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
I’ve thought about this issue before. Especially when I saw the paper that single moms have to sign asserting that they are most certainly NOT gay if they want to adopt from China. That really saddened me.
I’m mixed overall. I can see both sides–the side that says it’s okay to lie to a country about your sexual orientation, and the side that says it’s not okay, find another program.
Thanks for this discussion, Dawn.