There are opportunities in America that children of foreign adoption could not get elsewhere. America is known for having countless opportunities and being a safe place. International adoption is another form of people in other countries finding a new place to call home that can give them a bright future. Interlandi, being an international adoptee and now a news writer, spoke out about this topic in one of her articles. She discussed having opportunities that make up for a loss of home-culture upbringing: “My loss of ethnic heritage has been more than compensated for in the multitude of opportunities afforded by my adoption. Besides, I kind of like being a cultural chameleon (Colombian by birth, Sicilian by adoption, and American by upbringing). It makes me unique” (Interlandi par. 7). Kids of international adoption do not always have terrible stories of discrimination. Most stories actually show adoption having a positive effect in their lives, like that of Interlandi. America is a place where one can be who they want to be, and if international adoptees want to explore their home culture they have that right. The adoptees also have the right to a happy, loving family and childhood. Spivack, also being the executive director of Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, an adoption advocacy organization, believes international adoption is a positive way of giving children a good, successful life (par. 10). Adoptees have opportunities to reach their full potential despite where they come from, and that is one of America’s greatest ideals.
Counterargument/Refute #3: Home and Culture
Many readers will probably disagree with the opportunities adoptees gain on the grounds that adoption takes children away from their family and “true” home. “True” home being used to define the child’s birth country. Opposers of international adoption believe children need to grow up in their birth country where they’re not a minority. These critics also believe children cannot be taught their culture in the correct way as they are being raised in the United States. Amanda Baden, teacher at St. John’s University in New York and psychologist, explained, “There is this idea that if you give a child a language or dancing lessons that will allow them to grow up with the identity they need as a cultural minority in this country… That’s not necessarily the case” (qtd. in Lang par. 15). The essence of Baden’s argument is that adoptive American parents don’t properly introduce these customs into the lives of the adopted children. However, these adopted children are going to live their lives in a different culture so no matter what they are taught they will never have that full exposure. While it is true that lessons on a culture and living in that culture are not the same, it does not necessarily follow that the children would be better off in the place of their culture. The children were orphans in their home countries. Do orphanages make teaching culture their first priority? Even if they do, does having a family and a home not come before having a better understanding of their birth culture? Orphanages, foster care, and other institutes are harmful to a child’s development; only a family and home can offer a child what he or she needs to be successful in his or her life (Spivack par. 10). Not only does international adoption provide opportunities for the adoptees, but it also provides opportunities for the adoptive parents.