The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Should the international adoption be prohibited?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,746 times Debate No: 29597
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




Deprivation of chances to adopt

Orphan children living in the homeland of adoptive parents, could have more possibility on finding of a new family if adoptive parents did not take children in other countries.

The international adoption is an example social injustice because adoptive parents, neglecting needs of another's children in their country, take on adoption of the foreign.

The international adoptive parents often take children with serious diseases. The money spent by them for treatment, travel expenses, etc. could go on the worthy life and education of several children in the homeland. However, because of that adoptive parents find the time, attention and money for foreign children, orphan children in the homeland of adoptive parents are deprived.


International adoption should NOT be prohibited.

All people are equal. One person cannot be discriminated because of their race, gender, or age. So why force parents to adopt children only from your country? Isn't this discriminating by race? Why let orphan children die alone, and if they have a disease, die alone AND sick, just because they are not the same race as you?

Most countries will always have extra orphans. The parents of that country will not be able to adopt them all, so these orphans will have to depend on international adoption.

And are you saying, parents shouldn't be able to nurse sick orphans to health, just because, for example, they are Ukrainian and you're American? This is another form of discrimination. Are you saying, that instead of saving one child's life, you should use the money to make life more fun and leisurable for multiple children?

What would YOU rather do? Save one child's life, or let another child go on fun vacations, and have a "worthy life and education"?
Debate Round No. 1


International experience shows that children, who have been adopted by people from another country, are often victims of domestic violence, of course not all, but substantial part of them. It is a fact, and everybody can remember some awful stories about adopted child with lemantable end.

Adoptive parents, using that adopted child has no relatives in the new country, often remains unpunished for their actions. In fact, adoptive parents have no obligations on providing the report about life of child. Responsibility completely lies on guardianship institutions of the country of adoptive parents, however practice shows that not every country, guardianship institutions pay attention to children, especially for them who have been adopted.


International adoption funds the global economy. An international adoption costs far more than a domestic adoption. This will bring more money to countries that are in need of support and money. Also, orphans are put in orphanages for a reason, and that reason is so they will be adopted by parents. Regardless of the race or sex of the orphans, a home is a home. If no one in that country is willing to adopt them, why not use international adoption?

Also, there is no difference between international orphans and domestic orphans. When you said international orphans don't have relatives, don't domestic orphans not have relatives either? Wouldn't they have been adopted by their relatives if they did have them?
Debate Round No. 2


Loss and Grief. The loss of the birth parents as a result of adoption sets the stage for the feelings of loss and abandonment that many adopted persons may experience at some point in their lives. An adopting family and the adopted child find themselves facing some emotional and developmental issues and concerns that are different than those faced by a child that has been biologically born into the family.

Loss is a feeling that runs through the lives of children who have been adopted. It shows itself in different ways at different stages of their lives. But knowing that their birth parents made an adoption plan for them, and then not hearing a lot of information about the birth parents, often makes adopted children feel devalued and affects their self-esteem. Sometimes they feel as though their status in society is ambiguous.


This had been a very fun and interesting debate.

Your arguments have been very persuasive, and I believe mines have been too.

Happy voting :)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mananlak 3 years ago
Why aren't they both con?
Posted by Almusha 3 years ago
You know, this issue is really controversial, I am from Kazakhstan and nowadays situation between Russia and U.S.A can prove it ( I am about Bill Dima Yakovlev, Magnitsky Bill). I am a student and I have the topic for my discursive essay about international adoption, of course, I am for it, but as I researched there are good argments to prohibit it:)
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
That was a joke. lol
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
You would have to prove that children are evil :P
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
P1) Children are evil.
P2) Government's have an obligation to minimize evil.
P3) International adoption of children would raise the net evil in a country by disproportionately inflating the ratio of net evil relative to net good (i.e. those beings that are not children) that exists within a country in the absence of foreign importation of those beings that are evil (i.e. children).
P4) International adoption of children would prevent the increase of net evil.
C) International adoption should be banned.
Posted by tennis47 3 years ago
I know, right?
Posted by LatentDebater 3 years ago
What idiot will go pro on this?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no arguments against international adoption that cannot be used equally well against domestic adoption.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious votebomb is obvious.
Vote Placed by iholland95 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I was adopted from Russia and maybe someday I'd like to adopt my own child from out of the US so get over it. Too bad if you hate it. You're loss