DEBATE: Should international adoption be banned?

Yes. It’s impossible to control If you have a child, then you know so well how daunting it is when you have to leave her or him to go somewhere for a reasonable period of time. So how would you feel if you had to give up your child to someone that you do not know and from another country, most probably very far away from home, to raise them for you? Unbearable to imagine. Right? Well, that is the reason we are discussing the issue of allowing foreigners to moving from their countries in search of children to adopt. Please don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against foreigners, and neither do I think that they cannot make good parents. But these children are our children. Why should we not work on a plan to encourage families to take them on and adopt them instead of giving them to strangers whose whereabouts we may never be able to trace after they sign on the dotted line? I am in no way insinuating that everyone who comes here to adopt a child has bad intentions because bad people can even be within the locals who are interested in these children. What I mean is that it’s easier for the law, for the community to keep a keen eye on how these children are being treated; on whether the adoption was solely for the benefit of the child or for exploitation purposes. Some people will argue that by banning international adoption, they are depriving children in countries where most families are unable to adopt an opportunity at a better life, and I agree that there is some truth to this. But is encouraging international adoption a sustainable solution for all the children that need families? The number of foreigners that leave their countries in search of children to adopt is very small that in the long run, policies that see children incorporated in homes and for those that can’t afford it, maybe the government can work on how to support them from within those homes. In our African culture, a child belongs to a community. In Rwanda in particular, our culture encourages adults to treat every child like their own. There are valuable lessons that can be learnt from teaching our children that the door is always open for those who need help. By bringing these children get into our homes and raising them alongside our own, with the little resources we have, we are paving a way for a sustainable solution that will see no child sleep on the streets or even have to live in an orphanage. All we need is to open our hearts and our doors. editorial@newtimes.co.rw No, that would only make things worse There is luck, and then there’s super-duper-beyond-your-wildest-dreams luck. Considering the fact that the ‘born with a silver spoon in the mouth’ expression doesn’t apply to them, the adopted Jolie-Pitt kids might just be one of the luckiest ‘rugrats’ in history - if their adopted parents’ net worth is anything to go by. Hollywood power couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, estimated to be worth $385 million combined, adopted Maddox, Zahara and Pax, from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam respectively. As orphans without the faintest hope for a solid future, it is safe to say that they hit the jackpot. The same can be said for Madonna’s adopted kids and every other child who has fallen into the golden hands of a superstar. Even though no one will ever admit it openly, because they do not want to come off as ungrateful, some silently wish that this kind of luck would also knock at their door. But it is not about how rich a person seeking to adopt is, it is about getting steady, healthy and happy homes for these kids. So, why ban international adoption? What possible reasons are there to disallow it? I think it is one thing to ban general hazards like public smoking, and it is a slippery slope to try and limit what one wants to do with their life. For example, if I am fully capable of giving a disadvantaged human being the chance at a decent life, why say no? If couples are banned from adopting overseas, many children will be left without homes. There are way too many children in need of a home for anyone to even think about such a radical move. Developing countries are unable to take care of all their orphans, especially in times of civil war, natural disasters and the like. Some end up dying of malnourishment. International adoption won’t just only help these kids with the basics of life; it has the resources to treat the disabilities or health complications that come as a result of such hazards. Also, it is easier to adopt from overseas (the paper work is straightforward) than it is locally, as some countries have strict rules regarding adoption. It may come with a few bumps but that shouldn’t push the bid to put an end to foreign adoption. In some cases, a child up for adoption, say in America, even when they are not yet adopted, will most likely have a better life, more than an orphan from a third world country can ever hope for. Many people believe that children taken away from their home countries might lose their cultural identity and it is unfair to deprive a child of their heritage. I think it is also unfair to deprive a child the chance to a normal life. I understand the need to embrace culture all too well, but I’m afraid if I had to choose between culture and a warm bed to sleep in every night, coupled with a decent meal about three times a day, the latter would suffice. Also, who says they have to forget about their culture? What are books for? They can learn as much about their culture as they want to. While some may argue about traffickers, with the right paper work and procedures, adoption should be kept track of. It must be carried out properly and with regulation. So maybe international adoption might not fully put an end to dying children around the world, but any help is better than no help at all. rachel.garuka@newtimes.co.rw

Lifestyle

DEBATE: Should international adoption be banned?