In my January 31 entry, I explained that hordes of people are seeking to adopt children orphaned during the tsunamis. Most of these children are not available for adoption, nor will they ever be. Here’s why:
- The tsunami orphans represent the next generation, and many communities are not willing to lose their remaining children.
- Cultural norms dictate that extended family and community members care for orphaned children. Unfortunately, many of the orphans will become servants in their relatives’ homes, where they’ll do menial labor. Many girls will be sold into marriage when they become teenagers.
- Religious restrictions come into play. Islam, for instance, does not allow non-Muslims to adopt Muslim children.
- Governments do not have regulations in place that allow for international adoption. While Americans often adopt children from Thailand or India, adoption is almost unheard of in Sri Lanka or Indonesia. Such countries may have unstable governments with insufficient regulations to prevent baby-trafficking, or they simply believe that orphans should be raised in local orphanages. Most of Africa’s 54 countries forbid adoption, even though 80 percent of the world’s AIDS orphans live there.
Source: The Washington Times, "Adoption not an option," by Cheryl Wetzstein, February 2, 2005
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Wake up, people! Are you serious? The question is not why do those countries not allow adoption, but rather why do any countries allow it? MOST countries and cultures do not allow adoption! WHY? Because it separates families – parent from child — surely one can comprehend that simple fact! It has nothing to do with Islam (hmmm, rather outrageous the inference!) and in fact, many religions, cultures, countries and families recognize adopting a child away from one’s family to be a barbaric and cruel act! Adoption is not a simple cure for unfertility — it has lasting, and in fact life-long impact on the birth family, the adopted child and on the family who welcomes another family’s child into their home. It should be rare, and encouraged only for the sake of the CHILD when his/her own parents cannot care for him/her — it is not merely a convenient solution for infertile couples! Please, it is time to consider why we in the USA, Australia and other parts of the Anglo-Saxon world continue to treat it as such!
A correction needs to be made: Adoption is not unheard in Sri Lanka. I know two Sri Lankan families who are Sri Lankan Citizens and who live in Sri Lanka who have adopted and in fact, one of them just adopted a three month old girl last week. Adoptions are infrequent to rare outside of the country, but are happening within the country. The sad part is that there are many not adopted and who languish in the orphanages without family to care for them.
Many countries in North Africa and the Middle East do allow adoption, but it is difficult to follow through with the procedure. In addition, the orphans have to keep their last names to prevent potential incest when they grow up.