October 17, 2004

UNICEF Calls for a Moratorium

As seems to be a near annual event, UNICEF has once again called for the government of Guatemala to place a moratorium on adoptions. Last year this was via the Procurador de Derechos Humanos when he falsely claimed that PGN had approved 1,500 adoptions in 10 days. This year, it has come via a conference held in Guatemala. The conference was attended by President and Mrs. Berger, members of the PGN, members of Congress, as well as officials from other Latin American countries.

It is uncertain what impact, if any, this conference will have on in-process cases or on the future of adoptions from Guatemala. For the most part, the content seemed to be more of the sensationalized claims that have become commonplace for UNICEF. These claims are all well documented and quite frankly not worth repeating

Despite a change in its formal position regarding intercountry adoption issued earlier this year, it is apparent that UNICEF has not changed anything in practical application. They still lobby for an end to intercountry adoption from Guatemala without offering any help, monetarily or legislatively, to how Guatemala can improve its adoption system in a manner that is consistent with the Guatemalan Constitution, respectful to the human and civil rights of birthmothers, and not detrimental to very children it claims to seek to protect. Once again UNICEF had speakers declare the definition of success as being a severe reduction in intercountry adoptions without any mention of increases in domestic adoptions, family unifications, or improvements to social programs designed to provide the basic necessities children need to survive and flourish.

As more develops regarding any impact this conference may have we shall certainly report it. We shall also report any grassroots campaigns or other organizing going on to expose UNICEF for its hypocritical position on ICA. In the next week or so, we will also be publishing a campaign to inform Trick-or-Treaters for UNICEF on how their position on ICA is truly detrimental to children.

For more information on UNICEF’s position on ICA, please visit Families Without Borders.

Posted by Kevin at October 17, 2004 01:28 AM

Amazing! Just what do these people have against international adoption? Could it be as simple as national pride? Are countries awash in orphans and street kids simply jealous of countries whose citizens willingly bring needy children into their homes offering them all the rights and benefits of biological children? Do they really believe it is better for unlucky kids to be institutionalized versus raised in a real family? We are sickened by the continual battle between what we see as good versus evil in international adoption.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 17, 2004 09:40 AM

Hi all,

Long time without contacting you but I am here.

Yesterday, I sent a comment to a Guatemalan newspaper regarding the hypocritical attitude adopted by UNICEF. But the newspaper took out a good part of it. They eliminated the part where I was manifesting my dissapointment with the authoritarian attitude taken by UNICEF representatives. Also, I reflected, at the ethical level, about the fact that while UNICEF personnel denounce self-righteously adoption's honoraries, they themselves receive a salary that betrays the humanistic sense of their job.

If I had been in that seminar I had proposed to regulate lawyer's fees. In fact, I had proposed taking Mrs. Acosta and Mrs. Ortiz's salaries as standards to decide how much a good professional should earn when working with children. You can easily imagine how these persons had reacted in front of such proposal.

Of course, it is only one argument. There are many aspects involved in the distorted picture of adoptions fostered by these ICA enemies. But believe me that those guys would be ashamed of themselves if we present to Guatemalan people that information. At least we could help to neutralize somehow the negative input about adoptions that Guatemalan public opinion has received.

Jorge Rodriguez

Posted by: Jorge Rodriguez at October 17, 2004 08:15 PM

I am browsing this site for research paper..How many folks here were involved in helping and or preserving guatemalan adoptions, before they were diagnosed with infertility problems? Did many of you already have issues with UNICEF and want to help all of the poor children find forever families before infertility?
I am writing a paper on the psychological effects and trauma of infertility, and why families chose to adopt internationally. I am trying to find out if the majority are families who adopted because they really wanted to adopt a child, OR do most adopt because they have infertility issues?

Thanks a ton!!


Posted by: Lisa Moore at October 17, 2004 08:42 PM

Yes, its a yearly even with UNICEF going at Guatemala again. After the problems with Mr. Bruce Harris you would think they would lay off. But as others have said we must be strong and continue the battle. Why don't they go after China with the 1000s of female babies they place for adoption, most likely the Chinesse won't put up with them. To the poster above, you are not in the right place to get your reseach and I find your request for information inappropriate.

Posted by: Mary Mulcahy at October 17, 2004 09:31 PM

Very well written.
Since it does indeed seem to be one of UNICEF's major gripes that the attorneys are "making money" then, they should set the example and take no fee for their work to "help children." Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.
You would think that since Bruce Harris has been exposed for the leach he is, and that since much of UNICEF's "information" seems to come through him, they might question his motives and this "truth." There is no question that, just as there are some bad adoptoin attorneys in the US, there are some bad ones in Guatemala. I believe that if the US Embassy would ban for life any attorney caught in "shady practices", it would do wonders to clean up the system. Since the US has the largest amount of adoptive families, if an attorney would lose his right to practice in reference to US adoptions, for an ethically challenged attorney, I think that knowing he/she would lose that route to a living, it would make an impression.
Mom to the amazing Lettie

Posted by: Kathi Thomas at October 17, 2004 09:31 PM

We spent the afternoon with another couple who've adopted two daughters from China. He's an older gentleman like me. We were discussing international adoption when I asked "why would anybody be against IA?" He said it all boils down to the United Nations. The UN hates America and America is the biggest adoptor country. Pure and simple. What do you think?

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 17, 2004 09:32 PM

I am very sorry you find my post inappropriate. I did intend to be inappropriate.
I believe my question is a very "telling" one, thats all.


Posted by: lisa at October 17, 2004 11:33 PM

Hey Lisa...

I agree with Mary. Your "request" sounds disturbingly accusatory. Maybe you're "for real," but the way you compose your query is suspicious. I don't believe you're interested in our motives...I believe you're impuning them.

Jim K.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 18, 2004 07:24 AM

Hey Lisa...

I agree with Mary. Your "request" sounds disturbingly accusatory. Maybe you're "for real," but the way you compose your query is suspicious. I don't believe you're interested in our motives...I believe you're impuning them.

Jim K.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 18, 2004 07:24 AM

Why does this keep happening? Is this common in other countries? I know international adoption has it's risks and I do not follow other IC's like I do Guatemala but is this common across the board. If not, why Guatemala? With Bruce Harris gone I would have thought the 'spotlight' may have dimmed.
Sharon - Natalie's Mom. Home forever February 28, 2004.

Posted by: Sharon at October 18, 2004 09:05 AM


Before you made your comment about the United Nations, I had the same thought - UNICEF is opposed to international adoption because most of them involve the U.S. as the receiving country and the UN has some very anti-U.S. attitudes. I am beginning to read a book about the UN - Inside the Asylum - that speaks to these anti-U.S. attitudes.


Posted by: Dave Prewitt at October 18, 2004 09:54 AM

Lisa- I normally don't respond to things like this but I wanted to know why you feel your research should include such things??? Did anyone ask Michael J. Fox if he cared about Parkinson before he was diagnosed or Christopher Reeves about stim cell research and handicaps before his accident? What you need to realize that LIFE is what causes you to pick your battles. I would not have any opinion about infertility or adoption if I have not had to deal with it. I think part of the reason that I have fertility issues and then CHOOSE to adopt is to HELP other people and fight for the children of Guatemala. I would have not clue how to help them if I didn't experience this in my lifetime. You could ask this question to anyone who feels passionate about something....I think you need to look at your life and ask a similar question to yourself regarding something you feel strongly about......

Sorry everyone but it just rubbed me the wrong way!!!!!

Becky, Proud Momma to a wonderful baby girl!!!

Posted by: Becky at October 18, 2004 11:13 AM

Greetings to all:

I have never before posted on any chat board or public forum, however, after UNICEF's most recent actions in Guatemala this last week, and as I have been thinking more and more about their efforts to "protect the rights of the child," it occurs to me that the long-term outcome of UNICEF's efforts amount to little more than genocide.

Yes, that's right, genocide defined as the "deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Hyperbole? I don't think so.

Although UNICEF puts forth its agenda as an attempt to protect the rights of children, they fail at every turn to define how remaining in a country where there is no infrastructure to keep children healthy, protected, and cared for is going to benefit any child individually, any family collectively, or any country globally.

If the choice is that children die by the hundreds or thousands in their country of origin due to inadequate care, or that they leave their country of origin through adoption, how is the determination of the "best interests of the child" being made??? I defy anyone to even attempt a semi-rational explanation as to how a child starving to death in his/her own country is a preferable or acceptable alternative to adoptive placement in a family where he/she will be loved, protected, cared for, fed, educated, and raised.

No one - I repeat NO ONE - disputes that a child (1) has a right to remain with his/her birth parents; or (2) has a right to remain with his/her family of origin; or (3) has a right to remain in his/her country of birth. HOWEVER, when none of these options is realistic or attainable, then it becomes the responsibility of any sensible and humane entity concerned with the "rights of children" (as UNICEF purports itself to be) to recognize and SUPPORT the efforts of those who would seek to love, parent, care for, raise, and nurture these children.

UNICEF's attempts to deny the constitutional rights of the birth parents in Guatemala, and their obvious objection to the integration of children of other cultures into countries other than that of their birth is nothing more than bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance.

Let's see.......genocide in the guise of a loftier goal......does the name Hitler mean anything to anybody????

My thoughts, my soapbox, my hope for all children to be loved and cherished members of a family......

Michelle Ripp, Director
Intercountry Adoption Center

Posted by: Michelle Ripp at October 18, 2004 11:42 AM

Dear Lisa, respondents to Lisa & the group as a whole,

While Lisa's question, depending upon your life experiences (as Becky so aptly points out), may be inflammatory, accusatory, suspect, etc., it does raise an issue that those of us who have chosen to adopt as our first choice (i.e., no infertility issues) deal with throughout our adoptions and beyond. Certainly it is rude for us to question the motives, committment, and level of activism of others. However, it is irksome (and this is MY issue, so please don't fell compelled to point this out to me! - :) ) to see families who never considered adoption ever so interested in it for the relatively short period of time they pass through the process, & then to see them completely uninvolved (for whatever reason -- which may be really good ones!) in the welfare of orphans after their individual need for a child is met.

In my own selfish way (as all of our views/opinions really are), I want my own separate waiting line for referrals, placements, and all those crazy things we must wait for in this process -- I want my line separate from those who did not choose adoption as their first choice. My line would move more quickly and I would be praised for my lifelong committment to the welfare of children, blah, blah, blah.

As it is I live in reality and despite my committment to adoption for environmental, social welfare, etc. reasons, I (like everyone else here) am adopting because I want to raise a child even more than I want to save the world and all the orphans in it. Thanks for listening to just one more opinion!


Posted by: Boni at October 18, 2004 12:01 PM

Great comments folks!

To Lisa Moore, I was not offended by your post and am willing to help with the research (though I think you could have been more diplomatic). I tried to e-mail you but it came back.

To Jim, the UN is not anti-American. They are mad as heck with us right now regarding the illegal, unliateral war on Iraq and they have consistent been upset by our veto being used anytime the world community takes issue with Israel's actions in the occupied territories, but I really don't think that has anything to do with their position on ICA.

To Sharon, Guatemala is targeting because it is a privatized system where the government does not manage the entire process.

Michelle, your comments were wonderful though I think genocide is a bit strong. And personally, I always get a bad taste in my mouth when Hitler is used as a point of comparison.

Jorge - Thank you, excellent points.

Okay, I'm done. keep it rolling. Remember, the comments are for debate and differences of opinions. So we're doing great here!



Posted by: Kevin at October 18, 2004 12:36 PM

Not all people are adopting because of infertility issues. I am one of those people. I chose Guatemala over many other countries including my own because I have a very strong connection to the country having served as a Peace Corps volunteer in a Mayan village nearly 20 years ago. I speak Spanish fluently and I can still remember a bit of Mam-the Mayan language spoken in the village where I served. My home is filled with Latin American folk art that I have purchased over the years during many travels in the region. I have a very strong interest in Mayan weavings and can identify most major towns in Guatemala by their huipil designs.

I work in international reproductive health focusing primarily on family planning. Although I think pregnancy is the greatest thing is the world and the most powerful thing a woman can do, I could not justify becoming pregnant when I knew there were many children in the world in need of a family. I especially felt drawn to Guatemala because I knew I could raise my child to be bilingual and bicultural so that my child would have the best of both countries.

Not everyone fits into your hypothesis so neatly.

Posted by: Kim at October 18, 2004 01:18 PM

At first I, too, was rubbed the wrong way by Lisa's comment. It has been my unfortunate experience that b/c of my choice to adopt, I am somehow "less" of a parent (often told, not a "real parent"); and the concept of adoption somehow never rec's the respect and support that it should. This seems esp. true for international adoptions. As for the correlation between infertility and adoption, Kevin is correct in that your approach was probably not the best. Bear in mind that just b/c we do not bring our children into the world per say, we do still suffer for them. It is patronizing, at best, to imply that choosing to build (or add to) our families by adoption is just a solution to infertility. I assure you this is not the case with everyone. I chose adoption b/c that is where my heart is; and now that is where my son is. I also would not mind to help in your research paper, but you should be warned that you probably need to refine your interviewing/research skills to include a more diplomatic, compassionate, and open voice...

Posted by: Melanie at October 18, 2004 01:42 PM

Hi All :-),

I'm reading this with full attention from an European eye - were adoptions coming from Guatemala are still closed since last year. USA is pointed with a big finger here for more than one reason and the actual political situation makes it all worse. Be aware that I'm not anti-US I just say that what the US does now is not an example to follow for european. This said, it is clear to us european that all the US do, has a direct impact on european decisions. In the matter of adoptions, I know that european countries would like to see the US sign a Hague Treaty for exemple and it is said often that since US is the country that adopts mostly, they have their word to say... and it is true.

On my side I "feel" glad for each guatemalan child that can be adopted these days at least in the US. I fight in my country that adoptions to Guatemala can be reopened again, it's all but an easy task, it looks impossible. I agree with most of Michelle's view, even if, like it was said before some terms like genocide are a bit unreal. UNICEF is well known, powerful, it's not easy to tell people that they have a wrong view on adoptions in Guatemala and that they're acting wrong!! But we adoptive parents should inform people around us as much as we can to explain that each non adopted child is a child without future they way things are now. I was reading yesterday in the paper that 100'000 children a day die for hunger - one child every 5 sec. so how can someone say that adoption should just cease in countries like Guatemala????

Some points pointed out from our guatemalan lawyer against ICA make me think every day: racism - our children become citizen (!!) that may not please everyone, rivalism to medical infertility programs - a big loss of business - you can say adoption agains medical business... the list can be long, who knows the real truth?? The point that is always discussed is money, but some of you, like Jorge (that I always appreciate to read) pointed out some lines that make me think that there is more interest than only the money of the private lawyers that bothers UNICEF, it most be political somewere, of course this is my own thought.

A big hallo to Kevin - I read your posts and you're always my STAR ;-)!

Greetings from a swiss mom to 2 wonderful guate kids.

Posted by: Manuela at October 18, 2004 02:31 PM

Hi Kevin...

"the illegal, unliateral war on Iraq"

Wow...I just don't know what to I just won't say anything.

On second, I'll bite my tongue...hard.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 18, 2004 05:10 PM

I can't believe you are biting your tongue! I also am mine on that comment...

Like it has been said, the wording of your statment was a little accusatory. I chose to adopt a child and I chose Guatemala. As such I feel very connected to the people of my daughters birthland. However, anyone who adopts simply to "help poor children" is not adopting for the right reasons.

Last year Guatadopt provided us with slips of paper with info that we could pass out on Halloween informing people of the practices of UNICEF and the plight of Guatemalan adoptions. Unfortunately I did not keep a copy of that. Would you all be able to provide us with something like that this year?
Thanks for all you do to keep us informed.

Kathy proud momma to a 22 month old princess

Posted by: Kathy at October 18, 2004 08:13 PM

The flier is still on the site here:


Posted by: Kevin at October 18, 2004 08:22 PM

For all,
Again sorry about my wording. I did post the same question to the folks who adopt from Russia. Iam happy to say I did get enough info to close this chapter of my paper. The question may sound ugly, I had to ask it.. I have no personal issues on the whole subject other then trying to learn..

Boy have I learned....I did get a lot more responses from the families involved in Russian adoption. I was just a bit more interested in this because there is now the UNICEF issue..

I wish you all the best, in whatever you folks can do to help children. I hope you all can make a difference..Again did not mean to offend. I am sure it does not take a genious to answer the questions posted, but I really wanted to get some real percentages..

Good Luck To You who commit yourselves helping children.


Posted by: Lisa at October 18, 2004 09:04 PM

Hey Lisa...

I suggest you have someone proof read your paper. If it's as misleading as your question, your professor will be as confused as we.

Hey Kathy...

Kevin and I had a little talk off line. I will say that anyone who thinks the UN likes the US must be smokin' wacky weed while gettin' all their news from CNN.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 18, 2004 09:59 PM

It makes me sick ...... Lisa, you have the nerve to post your "little research project" on this site that we all turn to for support and information about our children. Fertile, not fertile what is the difference??? we are all here together for a reason....We obviously are all very dedicated to this process and these children, regardless of how we ended up here or what circumstances we have endured....unless you have endured our pain in waiting and wanting our children to be home and safe....please take your survey elsewhere!!!!! We all have legitamate reasons for being here, you obviously do not. This was not an appropriate forum for you to post your research paper. We are too concerned with our childrens future, I know I do not speak alone when I say your "paper" is not my top priority. If you want to lurk at least offer some words of support - It does not matter how we got here! What matters is that we are all here for the right reasons -- sorry but that is how I feel!

Desperately waiting for my son to come home!

Posted by: JR at October 18, 2004 11:07 PM


Posted by: EL at October 18, 2004 11:40 PM

I have appreciated reading thru the many comments made by concerned adoptive parents.
Kevin, thank you so much for keeping this site up to date and running! We so appreciate the information and support.
We just wanted to share our appreciation for this wonderful site. We also wanted to share our concerns with orginizations such as UNICEF.
I am curious as to how many of those directly involved with UNICEF are adoptive parents???
MY guess is not many. Ignorance is truly a dangerous state of mind.

My question to Kevin and to the rest of the Guatemalan adoptive community - is "what can we do" to educate these folks? Perhaps, I am "naive" and these folks that are involved with UNICEF have no desire to be "educated" on the virtues of incountry adoption?!
If there anything productive we can do as a community, please do let us know. Our family is praying for the children in guatemala ~ that incountry adoptions may continue to be a viable option for these precious children.

Dru & Gloria Pickering
mom and dad to 3 guatemalan "Muchachos" and 2 more precious ones on the way!

Posted by: Dru and Gloria Pickering at October 19, 2004 01:49 AM

As adoptive parents of four Guatemalan children (and one Paraguayan)who are anxiously awaiting the "thumbs up" on our fifth Guatemalan child (with as much anticipation and anxiety as if she were our first), we are very anxious to know what the actual fall-out of the UNICEF conference has been on cases pending in the PGN. We started our adoption over a year ago and, after more problems than I care to recount, are finally in the PGN and THOUGHT we were about to be approved. Now we are on edge again because of the UNICEF issue. If anyone has any updated information, please share it with us! Thanks.

Posted by: lawrence at October 19, 2004 10:29 AM

As adoptive parents of four Guatemalan children (and one Paraguayan)who are anxiously awaiting the "thumbs up" on our fifth Guatemalan child (with as much anticipation and anxiety as if she were our first), we are very anxious to know what the actual fall-out of the UNICEF conference has been on cases pending in the PGN. We started our adoption over a year ago and, after more problems than I care to recount, are finally in the PGN and THOUGHT we were about to be approved. Now we are on edge again because of the UNICEF issue. If anyone has any updated information, please share it with us! Thanks.

Posted by: lawrence at October 19, 2004 10:29 AM

We are new to this and just starting. Do any of you know where each of the presidential candidates stand on this subject? I hope this is a relevent question.

Heather M

Posted by: Heather at October 19, 2004 11:47 AM

Sorry Kevin...I can't resist. JIM I loved your post and totally agree.

Posted by: Laura Johnson at October 19, 2004 01:01 PM

Hi Heather...

I agree. I, too, wonder where they stand. It seems to me that any politician who is anti-abortion would be a BIG supporter of adoption. It is sad that the issue of adoption gets almost no attention.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 19, 2004 05:56 PM

This is also my first time commenting ... I just couldn't resisit! I applaud you JR and I agree with you completley Kathy -- we aren't adopting because it's the 'politically correct' thing to do or because we 'pity' these children in 3rd world countries -- we want to be parents and we want a family. It doesn't matter if we have biological children or adopted ones, they are still our children. Lisa your wording was very unfortunate -- I understand that what you're wondering is how many of us are adopting because of infertility issues and how many are not but please read over your emails and look at the tone. You are implying that adopting because of infertility is not a "real" reason to adopt a baby! And then your apology email -- what in the world?! " ... it does not take a genious to answer the questions posted, but I really wanted to get some real percentages.." what is that supposed to mean?

Mag mother of one "bio" child and awaiting our Guatemalan baby

Posted by: Mag at October 19, 2004 08:22 PM

I do not believe that either of them has strong opinions one way or the other regarding ICA from Guatemala.

I can say that if Kerry wins, there is a very well respected adoption professional who does have some connection to who would be the First Lady.

I can also say that Bush administration and the ruling GOP in Congress were of no help to us during the Hague and that they refused to get involved with the Guatemalan government on our behalf while Guatemala was still holding out on the free trade agreement.


Posted by: Kevin at October 20, 2004 11:36 AM

Is it appropriate to post political statements on this message board? If so, I have a few to share with everyone.

Jim K.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 20, 2004 03:52 PM


You can post whatever you like as long as you don't personally attack anyone.

This is an election period and unfortunately, innocent children do all too often become the pawns in a political chess game.

But for the record, what I posted about the free trade scenario is the truth as it was told to us (Bay Area Adoptive Families) by a member of the US Congress. And what I posted about the connection to Theresa Heinz Kerry is the truth as well. I did not claim that this connection would garner any more attention or support under a Kerry administration, merely that the connection does exist. And I also posted that I don't think either candidate is decidely pro-ICA.

For what it is worth, the two most vocal advocates of ICA in the Senate are one Republican (Sen. Nickles from OK who is retiring this year) and one Democract (Sen. Landrieu of LA). I also have heard that one of Kansas' Republican Senators has an internationally adopted child. In addition, Sen. Mccain, another Republican, has at least one child through ICA. There is also a Republican Senator from Idaho (forgot his name) who I believe adopted interantionally. None from either party, to my knowledge, has adopted from Guatemala.

As a general rule, I am the first to admit that the "liberals" have tended to be more critical of private adoption systems as they tend to have closer relations with groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty that have touted the UNICEF line. And the liberal L.I. newspaper Newsday has been about the worst in publishing propaganda from UNICEF and Casa Alianza. But they were also one of the first and most thorough to expose Bruce Harris's recent revelations.

So either side of the political spectrum, if there is such a thing anymore (I say that as a social pinko who agrees with Pat Bucanon on foreign affairs), could be viewed as supportive or detrimental. ICA is not what I am personally using to decide who I vote for.


Posted by: Kevin at October 20, 2004 04:16 PM


You took the words right outta my mouth.

Jim K.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 20, 2004 07:49 PM


I am "enthralled" with the "back and forth" you and Kevin are having here! All I can say is....You go, Jim!

Ginny (Mommy to Julisa-3yrs. old)

Posted by: Ginny at October 21, 2004 01:07 PM

Kevin said:
"the illegal, unliateral war on Iraq"
Kevin, I don't think your opinion on the war is relevant here. I thought we were commenting on UNICEF and the international adoption issue. It seems to me that Kevin's primary interest in this conversation is to persuade people to adopt his political views.


Posted by: Cecil at October 21, 2004 06:57 PM

Yes Cecil, you are 100% correct and have uncovered my secret plan. In fact, the only reason why I originally published this story and why I run this site is to spread my political agenda. By doing so, I hope to covert enough opinions to throw Dubya out of office and have the candidate I'll be voting for, David Cobb of the Green Party, take over the White House!


Posted by: Kevin at October 21, 2004 09:36 PM


The prickly reaction to your political comments is because many of us adoptive parents are sensitive to the adverse affect of ALL politics on adoption. I agree with Cecil's comments above. Also, your sarcastic response to him is excessive and inappropriate. The fact that you run this site should make you even more respectful of its purpose, in my opinion.

I hope you do not censor this post. I appreciate this site and thank you for your work supporting it.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 22, 2004 03:40 PM

Here is what kevin posted to jim a day or two ago,

"You can post whatever you like as long as you don't personally attack anyone."
That being posted, here is what I think:

To me it looks like cecil's post was a bit aaccusatory. I feel at times so many of us turn to kevin for so many answers. He seems like a great guy trying to run a very informative site in his "free time" while also working a full time job, and most important he is a new dad. The guy is busy!!
He is not paid to spend his time answering all of our questions nor is he paid to be offer his adivse and support. He is "volunteering" his time..... Soo he was a bit sarcastic. lets all cut him a break, I for one believe he deserves at least that.


Posted by: mom at October 22, 2004 05:36 PM


Since you seem like such a nice guy, you should realize it's possible there could be someone reading your post that has a relative risking there life in Iraq or has lost someone in a war that you say is "the illegal, unilateral war on Iraq". Whether we agree or not, we have to respect the brave soldiers and there families who may be more sensitive to war criticism than the average person.


Posted by: Cecil at October 22, 2004 11:45 PM


I have friends serving in Iraq. My boss's son just came home injured from a roadside explosion. When I protested the war, my sign said "I support our troops". We don't have to agree on whether we should be there, and I was not trying to start a political debate. I was merely reacting to Jim's statement about the UN. But please please please understand that being against our being there does not mean I don't respect our troops. Don't take this wrong, but IMHO, being against the war is respecting their lives which I don't think should be put on the line for the reasons this one was launched. Most of the people I know who have served in Iraq agree with me. Their opinions have changed drastically over the past few months. I want nothing more than to see our soldiers come home, alive.

I'm sorry if I was a smart *ss, that's just my natural writing style. But your original comment was quite insulting to me as it questioned my motives. I have other places to preach my politics, my involvement here is purely as an adoption advocate.

But let's the end the politics. I won't answer any more poltically related topics on this thread to do my part to accomlish that.



Posted by: Kevin at October 23, 2004 12:36 AM

Thanks for that explanation. I still believe the UN is anti-American and that some of UNICEF's stand against international adoption is because America adopts more than any other country. You have your opinions and I have mine.

Thank you, again, for your fine work on this website. This, too, will be my last post on this subject...I'm sure others will be glad to hear that.

Jim K.

Posted by: Jim & Leigh Koeniger at October 23, 2004 07:15 AM