On Saturday I posted a blog entry giving the cost breakdown of various countries, should people choose to adopt internationally. Last night I got a very impassioned comment from someone accusing me of "buying a baby." He asked why didn't I use my money to help a mother keep a child, instead. He had me all figured out: if I spent my time and energy doing that I wouldn't get what I wanted, which, I presume, was some other mother's child.

Ouch. Double ouch. I can't help but be a little stung by a comment like that, even though I don't happen to agree with it. Believe it or not, it's the first time anyone has said anything like that to me...to my face, at least.

Here's what I explained to him: children who are adopted internationally, by and large, have already been relinquished by their first parents or perhaps have been removed from their first parents' custody. Typically they are living in an orphanage, although in some countries they are living with foster parents. My son, for example, was removed from his first parents' custody and lived in an orphanage for 8 months before he was adopted by us. If we, or some other family (Russian or other nationality) had not adopted him his future would have been very bleak.

Now, we did not adopt him to save him from a bleak future. We adopted him to complete our family. So yes, we had selfish reasons for doing so, but I don't feel a bit sorry about what we did.

And yes, there are abuses of the system and there is also corruption. We chose our agency carefully to avoid that - I don't want my son, in 10 or 15 years - to accuse me of "buying" him. So we were really sure to chose an agency that has a long history of doing everything above board.

I was also not sure how to answer the comment writer's other suggestion: why don't I help birthmothers keep their babies? He doesn't know me or my family, obviously (nor do I want him to...), but my little publishing business is dedicated to giving 5% of all profits to adoption-related charities (we've given to iorphan.com a number of times, as well as other organizations) and personally, my husband and I give plenty of money and time to local non-profits. But we are not helping birthmothers, it's true. I think it's accurate to say that we focus our efforts (both internationally and locally) on children, orphans and non-orphans, kids who need mentoring, as well as regular old kids who need help with reading (I am getting special training to tutor dyslexic kids in the fall).

I honestly don't know how to help birthmothers keep their babies (especially internationally, unless I became a legislator or a voting member of some international advocacy group for women and children)...I'm open to suggestion, although I might not do what's suggested. I just don't see the parallel between the two situations - you've adopted a child so you "owe" a birthmother some help in return. I'm not trying to be snarky or pick a fight. I have sympathy for women who have been forced - by economics, age, or circumstance - to give up their children. But at the same time we all need to pick a focus in our giving (both time and money), and my focus is on the little ones right now.

See part 2 of this post here.