Please read the first two parts of this blog entry here (part 1) and here (part 2).

This kind of sentiment is everywhere. I bumped up upon it on a great political blog that I read on occasion (can't post the URL here - "bad" word in title - email me if you want to read a wonderful, entertaining blog by a very intelligent woman who happens to share the same political beliefs as I do). This blogger, who I usually admire, was criticising the actions of Missouri Senator Roy Blount, who, with his wife, had just adopted a little boy from Russia. The blogger's criticism was about the fact that Mr. Blount and the current Missouri lawmakers were mounting an assault against pro-choice legislation, sex education in the classroom, and were trying to limit contraceptive choices (I'm getting this from the blog - I am not an expert in Mo. politics so don't flame me for this) and at the same time were promoting adoption. Apparently the powers-that-be in Missouri, while basically telling the populace that abstinence was their only option for birth control, were simultaneously promoting adoption of children from the Missouri foster care system...and then Mr. Blount goes and adopts a child from Russia.

When I read it I saw the irony...but then I read the letters that people wrote my beloved blogger and things degenerated fast. People were saying that people adopted from Russia in order to avoid parenting a "black baby." Or that adoption from Russia was only for the rich. Or that people who've adopted internationally have been forced to buy a baby because they can't make one themselves.

Ugh.

The logic in this escapes me.

Here are some facts. Yes, people may be adopting from Russia in order to adopt a Caucasian child. That was certainly a factor for my husband and myself. My husband felt that his side of the family (who already seemed very uncomfortable with the idea of adoption) would be more comfortable with a Caucasian child. He thought he would be more comfortable with a Caucasian child. Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with that. Some people might be more comfortable with a girl, some with an older child, some with an infant. Some people would prefer a child of their same race...for whatever reason.

Adopting is a big responsibility - honestly, perhaps a bigger responsibility than giving birth to a child. That child has history (ethnic, biological, perhaps abandonment, certainly attachment) that needs to be acknowledged. If you adopt transracially you add another layer onto that responsibility. You also make your family very conspicuous. Some people don't want that responsibility or to be conspicuous. I think that's okay.

Second, adoption from Russia, or from any other country in the world, is not only for the rich. Yes, it costs money, but as many people in this blogging community can attest (see our transracial adoption blogger's situation, right now), with sacrifice, help from friends and family, and determination, it is possible to do it without being rich. My family is not rich. We happened to have some money saved up for our older son's college fund. Now he will have to get an athletic scholarship (!!) to go to school :). But it can be done without being rich.

And third, one reason why people choose international adoption over adoption from foster care (which is what the posters seemed to be saying was a more ethical choice...and by the way, children of all races are in foster care. Abuse and neglect are not limited to one race of children) is because with international adoption, even with all the ups and downs of countries closing and accreditation being revoked and the costs and so on and son on...the process is a LOT MORE CERTAIN than adopting from foster care in many cases.

(I know it's possible to adopt an older child from foster care who is 100% available for adoption. I know that in some states children are only placed with foster-to-adopt families once they are legally free. But in many other states (my own state of NC is one, I have no idea is Missouri is another - I tried to find out but was unable to determine the answer) children are placed with foster-to-adopt families who might be available for adoption...and the determination of this can take up to 3 years.)

So in other words, it's not because they don't want to parent a child who's in foster care...it's because they want to be a parent and KNOW they're a parent and start the hard work of attachment right away without being uncertain of their future with that child.

Thoughts? Questions? Flames?