It would seem, according to this CNN story, that breaking the law of any country is okie-dokie if the perpetrator is a pair of adopters who "dreamed of becoming parents." In a country (Egypt) where adoption is not legal, our "heroes" falsified documents in order to procure children for their "parenting needs."
As the story comes out, the attorneys for these people are going for the sympathy vote by waxing eloquently about their overwhelming need for a child. The bitch of it is that no one respects the laws of the country involved, just as no one respects the culture of the country of a child's birth or the person who brought a child into the world. No...all the sympathy is with the heroic, saintly adopters who suffer from infertility. The suffering of the mothers, grief and pain, and the suffering of the children who are not allowed their own, true heritage, take a back seat to the problems of the infertile and the adopters seeking social canonization. In 1962, if I had been told that I had to either lose my children to adoption(which is what I was told to do) or be infertile and never give birth, I think I would have chosen the latter.
What is wrong with this picture? Have we, the American public, fallen so fast and hard for the industry hype that we only validate the pain of the adopters while negating the deeper pain of the mothers of adoption loss and their children, shorn of their civil right to their own identities?
What about the case of the couple who abducted and raised a young man after the mother and father changed their minds about surrender? Not only did the kidnappers (and make no mistake...that is what they are) get all the sympathy, but even the abductee involved was supportive of the criminals that raised him. No one spared a thought for the parents that had searched for their son for years. I still do a slow burn over the injustice of that one.
So now falsifying birth certificates in Egypt and breaking the laws of that nation is being excused as a means to a "noble" end. How noble is adoption which is really all about the selfish needs of the adults that adopt and the money made by the industry? No one who really knows the score pretends, any longer, that it is all about the children, except the industry spin doctors and the adopters, themselves. There is no compassion for the mothers who have been made to represent the "sins of Eve" to the prudish and hard-nosed among us. And the children are seen as ungrateful if they, as adults, insist on their civil rights.
When did our world become so off-kilter that there is no compassion for mothers who lose their children and children deprived of their mothers? Why is that sacred bond no longer honored for what it is? Natural family preservation seems to only be for those that follow obscure and judgmental rules that have nothing to do with loving thy neighbor. Churches have long tried to keep their hands in the social engineering pot, doing all they can do to see that children are raised by "the right kind" of people, ie., those who follow the tenets of the church.
Somewhere in this land of myth and legend, there has to be someone who cringes at the thought of punishing an unmarried and/or financially disadvantaged mother by taking her child. Diogenes needs to lend us his lantern, but, rather than searching for an honest man, we need to search for what we have lost...balanced values and true compassion.
It's out there. I know it is.