WITHOUT BLINDERS: Ethical considerations in international adoptions BY ANTON FLORES
and social justice. However, living a God-honoring life is not without its complications. It was not until we had already committed to adopting Jairo and our bond to him was already formed that we learned of the existence of a vocal community of activists opposed to foreign adoptions of children from developing countries like Guatemala. The number of families from industrialized countries (mostly North America and Europe) adopting children from primarily less-industrialized countries is growing at an astronomical rate.Taking the United States as an example, we see that in 1992 American families adopted 6,472 children from foreign lands; in 1997 that number nearly doubled to 12,743; and in 2002 the numbers swelled to 20,099. But Leslie Doty Hollingsworth, associate professor of social work at the University of Michigan, contends that international adoptions are not only the result of social injustice but also that this injustice directly benefits families of industrialized nations. In a recent journal article (“International Adoption Among Families in the United States: Considerations of Social Justice,” Social Work, April 2003), Hollingsworth accurately describes the historical development of international adoptions as resulting from various factors, including wars (World War II, the Korean War), poverty (Central and South America), the fall of communism (Eastern Europe), and oppressive governmental policies (China). The director of an orphanage in Guatemala once lamented to me that she prays for the day when adoption agencies will no longer seek out children for families but instead seek out families for children.The difference may be subtle, but it is nonetheless significant. In the latter scenario, the child’s needs are central to the adoption; in the former, the prospec-
My eldest son, Jairo, is a joy to his parents. He’s creative like his father, sensitive like his mother, and energetic like all 5year-old boys. But Jairo was not born into our family.The youngest of three children born to a poor, indigenous woman in the highlands of Guatemala, just across the border from Chiapas, Mexico, Jairo joined our family in 2000. Adopting Jairo was a transformational experience for my wife and me, the result of several years of deliberation and prayer. Holding to a consistent-life ethic, we found ourselves growing weary of the endless debates about abortion and longed to find a new position that would not only incarnate our convictions but also act as a bridge between two polarized communities. Adoption seemed like the answer to our prayers. We believe that if members of the “pro-choice” community argue that a woman has the right to choose whether— or not—to abort a fetus, then they also have a moral responsibility to care for children whose mothers choose to make them available for adoption.We also believe that if members of the “pro-life” community argue that a woman should never willingly terminate a pregnancy, then they, too, have an ethical obligation to care for children whose mothers cannot or will not raise them. We believe that by being both “pro-child” and “pro-adoption” we can demonstrate an alternative perspective that unites these two polarized factions. Furthermore, the concept of adoption resonates with our Christian faith. Scripture clearly paints a picture of believers being adopted into the family of God. And so the idea of adopting a child not only became a compelling desire for us but also struck us as a calling from God. We felt God was leading us to have both biological and adopted children and that adoption was a perfect way to merge spiritual obedience
PRISM 2004
16