The article starts with a compelling anecdote:
Recently, my six-year-old daughter snuggled up against me and returned to our ongoing discussion about how we became a family. I was hoping I’d answered all her questions clearly, when she suddenly implored, “Oh Mommy, let’s not talk about that terrible thing!” I was amazed that she could look upon one of my happiest memories as “that terrible thing.” Then she blurted out, “What if someone else got me? What if you weren’t my mom?”Now I understood. Patiently, I told her how she is the only child for me and reiterated how we were meant to be together.
OK, I can see an answer to the child's concern that emphasized how perfectly matched we are. It's that comforting answer about belonging that I mentioned in "Meant to Be" II. The answer here is heavy on the destiny theme for me, and I'd be happier if she'd stopped at the "only child for me" point -- that "meant to be together" thing is too close to the "meant to be abandoned" thing I've posted about.But then we read further, and discover why the author is so convinced she and her child were meant to be together, that her daughter was not meant to be with her birth parents:
Years ago, when I first began the process of adopting, I spoke with some of my philosophy professors about the theme of adoption and destiny. One said that international adoption may be a new kind of conception, in which “a being may be going through whatever body they can” to arrive in the family and culture where they belong. In other words, destiny will bring them to a new kind of family not based on biology.
I have never forgotten this image and was surprised when I found it echoed in a story from The Lost Daughters of China, by Karin Evans. This time, however, it was one of the Chinese facilitators of the author’s travel group who was voicing this belief. “We have a saying in China,” he declared. “We say that maybe these babies grew in the wrong stomachs, but now they have found the right parents.”
Great, even philosophy professors and Chinese adoption facilitators buy into "destiny!" But how disturbing is that argument? Birth mother as a pass-through body -- the baby "going through whatever body they can" to reach the family and culture they really belong in? I can't imagine a more morally bankrupt philosophy to justify adoption. And how about the suggestion that this somehow works only in international adoption? Apparently these foreign birth mothers qualify as nothing more than incubators. The "exotic Other," anyone?