Daily Archives: January 31, 2012

This and that…

Search term that brought someone to this blog that just JUMPED OUT at me today – how on earth could anyone even remotely consider it acceptable…

adoption fraud is not human trafficking

Really Okay I know the USA does not have it under their official definition of human trafficking, but it comes pretty darn close to it, if not meets the definition.  Of course that is just my position, but I do know others agree with me.  Lets stop and think of the advantages to the CHILD if the USA did include adoption fraud in the definition of human trafficking.  There would be real laws with plenty of teeth and jail time for anyone convicted in either country.  That would mean they would have a real incentive to ensure the CHILD is actually available for adoption.  That would mean they would not casually accept falsified paperwork by the brother of the police chief, or the person who said claims they are the biological parent.  That would mean they would do DNA testing for all adoptions to ensure the person surrendering was actually the person they say they are.  I could go on and on and on.  It would mean everyone actually acting in the childs best interest – not the bottom line, the PAP waiting, just the child.  What a concept.

And that does not even begin to take into consideration the life-time impact on the child, or the adopting parents who have to live with the fact their child may not have needed to be adopted.

I do realize the demand drives the supply and if only those actually available for adoption were adopted then some PAPs would be out of luck…oh well…no one should ever accept those two words being linked – you know “adoption” and “fraud” they just don’t work together where as “ethical” and “adoption” work very nicely together.  Adoption fraud is wrong.  No getting around it – it is wrong, wrong and still wrong.  Put yourself in the child’s REAL parents shoes and what would YOU call it then.


I watched C.S.I. M.i.a.m.i. the other night.  The one where the sperm “donor” (quotes because he was paid) was murdered.  You knew it was bound to show up on a show sometime.  The storyline talked about him having 103 kids out there as confirmed on the Donor Sibling Registry, yet they forgot that annoying estimate by the industry that only 80% of parents tell their children.  When you stop and think about that the 103 being 20% of his children…you could estimate what 500 or so children, but of course he still had frozen sperm at the clinic because part of the plot was the destruction of the sperm. 

Turns out the “donor” was a carrier for Turner disease that destroys your liver, and you know you need your liver to live.  They had to add more drama in that one of the mothers used a surrogate and delivered identical twins and kept one.  They spun the story to the ninth degree to make it just as juicy as it could possible get.  Thankfully, they didn’t make one of the children the guilty one, but they certainly focused on the children as the foremost suspects, instead of looking to the spouse which statistics prove most likely to be the one. 

It did try to stereotype the donor conceived much like adoptees have been stereotyped on TV.  I think less than the stereotype of adoptees, because the “donor” was a successful person and of course the mothers were all upstanding people who just wanted to parent, so the “genes” weren’t suspect like adoptees. 

But at the end of the day it did stereotype and cast suspicion on donor conceived to some degree, but it also raised the red flag about the risks for genetic diseases without knowledge provided, and it also raised the red flag about the sheer number of children from one sperm “donor”. 

Mixed feelings about it and I am not particularly fond of the show to begin with, so that’s my take on it.


Posted by on January 31, 2012 in Adoption, adoptive parents, biological child, Ethics


Tags: , , , ,