International adoption is morally indefensible

This text is a summary of my thoughts about international adoption. I’ve been discussing it more or less public for a while, and about a month ago I was interviewed by Metro (newspaper) and Sveriges Radio (Swedish public service) respectively on the issue. There are many arguments to be brought to bear on this issue but here are my main points:

Persons wanting to become parents must unconditionally understand that children are not a human right. Creating a family is not a human right. Children are humans. Humans with rights that we, as a global community, have decided needs extra protection. As a community, we have thus shouldered the responsibility to not let one persons wants be of higher value than another. Adoption is thus, by principle, an agreement between the entire human collective, and the person who wishes to adopt.
The structures enabling international adoptions are failing in their very core function; no longer do they assure that the humans being transferred are subjects with integrity and human rights. Rather, the networks, organisations, and in some cases governments, treats humans as commodities of trade. Objects with qualities and price tags. At every milestone between the child in need and the person wanting, there are pitfalls. We are revealing them piece by piece.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have rights in addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those rights are supposed to be respected and enforced by the collective to protect the young from abuse and oppression. For we believe, that all humans have the ability to err, but as a collective we might guide ourselves to a morally sustainable behaviour.
As a nation built upon the idea of equality. As a nation created upon the idea of mutual respect. As a nation founded to ensure that each and every one will be granted the freedom to create our own lives while maintaining full responsibility for not endangering other people or disabling their ability to achieve self fulfilment. As this nation, we can no longer partake in international adoption.

But wait, there’s more.

Children in need are the outcome of weak welfare structures. If some of us really want to do a “good thing” that “thing” is not “adopting a coloured kid”. It’s empowering the local communities where those children exist, to ensure that children-of-need will be eliminated in the long run. Empowering another person is basically letting go of your own power. Is time money power? Then give it up.
Another great obstacle to eliminate the need of international adoption are cultures with criminal values. Yes, I wrote that. A crime against a child is a crime against humanity. If a society has values that will deny a child its’ rights it is committing a crime against humanity.
Non-white children being adopted to white hegemonies. Post-colonialism, please.
It’s also in many aspects a feminist issue (what isn’t when it comes to equality?) since critique can be adressed to whether the women who give their children up for adoption wants this (e.g. rape, forced childbirth, non-consentual surrogate mothers etc.). It also raises questions about surrogate mothers in general, since this is also treating the child as a commodity rather than a human.
The money involved. Money is naught but sublimated, refined, and projected, power. There’s no principal difference between money in a wallet and bullets in a gun. But that’s a whole other discussion right there.