Reading parts of this thread, I was reminded of the recent film 'Gone Baby Gone," a first feature by Ben Affleck, based on the novel by Dennis Lehane. The reason I liked the film so much was how it posed the provocative moral and ethical question of whether it's okay to "steal" a child, to save her from a potentially miserable future--extralegally, that is. Check out the movie!

It may be hard to judge how widespread the adoption abuse actually is in Guatemala, and whether or not any of it can be defined as kidnapping. (I have no doubt some of it is).

However, the main point is that foreign adoption, particularly from third world, underdeveloped countries, is always deeply problematic.

Not long ago, the conservative Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote an op ed piece complaining of how difficult it was for parents in the U.S. to adopt domestically. He argued that the system was too regulated, and that adoptive parents, once they got the baby, had to live in fear of birth mothers actually exercising their legal rights and reclaiming the babies. On the basis of this fear, he and his wife decided to adopt from overseas, and I believe it was from Guatemala or El Salvador. It brought them peace of mind, he said.

Something seems very wrong with this--as it's okay to skirt regulations by going overseas to get what you want--from places that don't have laws, and where people don't have rights. It's a little bit analogous to US corporations going overseas for thier labor--because over there, one doesn't have to deal with silly things like minimum wage laws.

Except the "outsourcing" of babies is a lot more insidious. Same concept, really: women in the US who give up their babies actually have some rights. In going to a third world country to get your baby, you're counting on, indeed your family happiness depends on the fact that women in those countries would never have the rights or the resources to do anything about it--no matter what the circumstances were when they gave up the babies.

"I think we need to get away from feeling sorry for people because they were greedy and/or stupid and get into a house they would inevitably be unable to afford."

Hmmm. The sentiment above is quite the double standard. There are "greedy" and "stupid" people everywhere, I suppose. But somehow the very rich ones who take enormous risks out of stupidity or greed (Jimmy Cayne, Bear Stearns) deserve a lot of sympathy and pity in the form of a giant government bail out. But people in the lower income brackets? If they are greedy, stupid or use poor judgment, they deserve nothing but derision, right?