By Katie Jay
There is a type of comment I regularly get on this blog from the anti-adoption nuts:
“The money you are spending to bring just one child out of her country could be used to build a clinic or school, fund a doctor, public health nurse, or teacher for a year, to improve the lives of everyone in the village. How is taking one child benefitting the thousands left behind?”
The question is whether adoptive families—who are a tiny, insignificant percentage of players in the global orphan crisis—who spend $30K for our adoption costs would be better to contribute to charities instead. Which begs the question: Would the world be a better place overall with that approach, even though the children who would have been adopted would die?
The answer is no. It’s not even a debate. Here’s why.