The Word "Trafficking"

Human trafficking involves two things: 1) the transportation of humans and 2) the exchange of money. We can also throw in some words about it being unethical or illegal.

So what makes adoption not human trafficking?

Is it consent? And whose consent? The babies' consent? The birthfamilies' consent? The adoptive parents' consent?

Is it goodwill, intent, or motivation? Is love enough to justify everything?

What about the source of humans? And whose version of the "truth" about the origins of the babies becomes the only "truth?" Is it the adoptive agencies? The orphanages employees? Especially when birthfamilies are not allowed to tell their side of the story?

There is a huge difference between the slave trade and the adoption industry. At least, there should be. In an idealistic world, orphaned children and babies would be matched with loving parents like two puzzle pieces, crossing miles and continents to make many hearts whole. But this is the real world, and in the real world, shit hits the fan.

Let's stop for a moment to acknowledge that time and time again, across all countries, adoption leads to exploitation, human trafficking, slavery, and forced prostitution. These aren't "exceptions." These should be expected, in fact, and you can find instances of all of the above throughout history, distant and recent. The adoption agency, CCAI, just had an entire lawsuit centered around two very unethical adoptions where one of the male adoptees had been raped and forced into prostitution at the orphanage. So yes, where the powerless are concerned, you will always find something terrible and someone else benefitting. 

Now let's put all that aside, all those pesky statistics, outcomes, and freak "incidents" of crime. We focus now only on the bare bones foundation of what it means for someone to be trafficked.

Human trafficking is illegal. Adoption is legal.

Sometimes human trafficking is illegal and leads to an adoption that's legal...and in that case, everyone's a victim: adoptee, birthfamily, and adoptive family. 

But even in the purest form of adoption, where a birthfamily willingly and without coercion makes the fully informed decision to relinquish a baby to another family with everyone's consent (except for the adoptee's, of course), what makes adoption so different from trafficking?

After all, adoption is a multibillion dollar industry. Money is exchanging hands. Whose hands? Does it matter? Is purchasing a baby the same as spending money in order to have a baby? And what are the ethics of adopting someone out of foster care for the explicit motivation to get paid by the government?

I've been told countless times that my parents never paid for me-by my parents. Because, after all, human trafficking is illegal. But where did the money go? Because frankly, I need an answer for all those bullies at school who say my parents bought me. So...money?

I think about it like this:

Money is involved to be vetted, interviewed, and enrolled in the adoption agency's program in order to be approved for adoption. Those employees at the agency need to be paid. Ca-ching.

What about that plane ticket to China? The bus fees, the other plane, and the hotel fees, plus the guided tours and translator fees in China? Those services need to be paid for! More money.

What about filing out all that pesky paperwork? The kind that makes me a US citizen, so that when I apply for federal student aid for undergrad I'm not in crisis and then deported? More money.

What money is given to birthfamilies for me? None.

What money, if any, makes its way to the orphanage? That's the question.

When asked, my parents cannot recall. It's not exactly like they walked up to the orphanage director with a check or a wad of cash. The fee or rather, donation, was probably couched in terms of "paying it forward" to ensure the survival and comfort of the orphans left behind. After all, what's so bad with buying orphans clothes and formula? The "donation" was snuck in there, somewhere.

But there has got to be a profit motive somewhere. Why? Because orphanages were offering "finding fees" to doctors, midwives, and locals to kidnap, coerce, or otherwise obtain babies from their birthfamilies. Domestic orphanages then turned around and would sell these babies to larger internationally adopting orphanages in a rather tangled baby black market. What was the anchor? Surely, if we follow the money, that anchor would be the international adoptions and the money. Obviously we now know orphanage directors had political power in the area, were well connected, and embezzled orphanage funds to furnish their lifestyles. Just like the mafia might sell drugs, these orphanage directors viewed babies as their products.

The natural idea would be to say that the adoptive parents are the end customer, the ones making the final transaction and receiving that final product. And while it's dehumanizing to think of adoptees as goods, it fits within the analysis of the entire criminal operation being a black market--and so when it comes to unraveling an international crime, feelings need to be set aside, and we need to look at the situation from the point of view of those perpetrating the crime.

But I rather think that the money involved in adoption is for a service, not a good. The money, it could be said, is used not for the direct exchange of goods (i.e. me) but rather, the blood that pumps through the veins of the adoption industry. Rather than viewing adoptive parents as slaveholders, buying humans, the key role of their financial support is to keep the wheels of the whole operation turning. The money is for the process, not the product. You pay colleges for the opportunity to learn, you don't pay them directly for the knowledge, because education is a process, not a good--and this is clearly evidenced by all the idiots who graduated.

Back then, there were no internet horror stories of international adoption form China, and to this day, China maintains a glowing grade from the Hague as a beacon of ethical adoptions. When tensions and feelings run high, it can be tempting to assign blame and innocence in terms of who had choice and who didn't. Adoptive parents had the choice. Orphanages had the choice to recruit babies in extralegal ways. Birthfamilies didn't. Adoptees didn't. But in a situation as complicated as this, I rather think fully informed consent and fully informed choice would be the better qualifier. And adoptive parents certainly didn't have fully informed anything.