Counterargument
What does foreign adoption offer besides the basic necessities? According to Evelyn Robinson, “mainly children do not feel appreciated, nor secure, living with their natural or adoptive parents.” They may have a home to live in, but something is missing. Bonding with their new family can be difficult and never fully develop. The childs’ relationship with the adoptive parents sometimes can never replace their biological mother or father. They feel like an outcast, but still a part of their new family.
Even though children feel awkward and out of place when first being adopted, institutions should be their last resort. Children eventually benefit more when having a steady home-life. “Statistics from countries like Russia are plentiful, which demonstrate that children who grew up in institutions had increased rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and criminal activity.” (Spivack) Obviously, providing a well balanced atmosphere can give the child guidance and a place of nurture. Being in a family setting shows the child how to be productive in their relationships. Their adoptive family is their example of what a “normal” family should act and be like. Their family teaches and guides them with lessons only a family can provide.
Katt said,
April 13, 2007 at 8:43 am
Your counterargument is stronger than your argument. See what you can do to expand on the points you’ve raised in your argumentative paragraph.