Trafficking children for adoption and a better life?
Above paragraph, source:
The issue of child trafficking for adoption can be controversial. Celebrities in the US, and maybe even the baptists, would argue that these children are getting a better chance by having the opportunity to being raised and educated in America.
The question arises who is to judge which life is a "better life"? We may say 'of course the US is a better place to grow up', but this may be a result of our own bias. We can only imagine how life is in a "poorer" country; and the thought is scary for us. While when born in a poorer country, it may be just the most natural life. For the native Americans, their life, before the material wealth, our education system and the general system of ownership was introduced..., their life surely had 'some' beauty and value.
The question remains if it is the right thing to do, to give a child the opportunity of adoption by US parents? Maybe in his/her home country the person wouldn't have the possibility for a degree, but the child may learn other things of relevance. Maybe in the US one may get, if one belongs to the percentage of population who can afford it, a health care plan? But if growing up in their home country, that individual may not need a health care plan, because he/she may not get diabetes, become overweight or obese? (75% percent of Americans are overweight, being overweight and obesity is caused by lifestyle and bad food.)
How do we judge the lives of others? What makes a 75% chance at being overweight with all the disability and disorder, health care costs, and the 'couch potato' like existence (according to a study from the University of Michigan, children ages 2-5 spend on average 32 hours a week in front of a TV); worrying about bills, trying to keep up, the headaches, frustrations of looking right, acting right, and being a part of a system that is now designed to extract huge profits while supplying Americans with cheap food and cheap products that are proving unhealthy for us.... Maybe living on an island in the Caribbean is not all bad?
The baptists may think that they are "doing-good", but maybe they are not? And the question is, what is there real motivation? Just stepping out here in America you can find a large number of children growing up with parents who don't seem to be able to manage a healthy lifestyle for these children. Children who have parents that are abusing them, parents with heavy drug problems, according to cia.gov 12% Americans live in poverty. Why not give those children a better chance?
"The Idaho church group's spokeswoman, Laura Silsby, conceded that she had not obtained the proper Haitian documents, but told the AP from detention that the group was "just trying to do the right thing" amid the chaos."
The disaster inspired them to move more quickly than they had initially planned to start a shelter for 200 boys and girls in the Dominican Republic, where they hoped to build a school and chapel and work with U.S. adoption agencies to bring in Christian parents."
Source: AP News
Or was the main motivation for the baptists not to give these children a 'better life' but simply Christian parents? Then this raises other moral and ethical questions.
Besides the human and moral aspects and its various justifications, there is also the economic factor. 60 years back, the poorer countries tended to be able to grow and harvest enough food? What has changed?
The main issue seems to be one should investigate one's own motivation when considering an adoption – and yes adoption can be a great concept.
Article written by Harito M. Reisman.
More news from: