This question comes from the title of an article at Counter Punch [ link ], and I feel it is addressed to adoptive parents in one sense, coming as they do from the class with the will and the privilege to change things domestically if they so desired. Here is a quote from the article:
Today the Obama Administration announced that it would base whether or not low-income earners would be eligible for government subsidies regarding the ACA mandatory insurance scheme on an individual’s income without factoring his or her family. Essentially this means millions of poor children will have no health insurance, left to the privations of the neoliberal market. To be clear, little has actually changed. Nearly 10 percent of all children in the U.S. currently do not have health insurance—some 7.3 million children. Additionally, the percentage of children who live in poverty and have no health coverage is 15.4 percent!! And in 2012 $400 million dollars was cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). What is new about this judgment is that it effectively institutionalizes the right of private business to further discriminate against children. After all, they do cost the more to look after and what profit is there in that? So when 26,000 children die each year, prematurely, because of lack of health insurance I am truly hard-pressed to arrive at another conclusion than children simply don’t matter.
As articles go, I feel it only touches the surface of the problem, which is worldwide. But it does turn the mirror around. In a way, the previous century’s “street urchins” have been formalized into the workplace and are being taught that their lives are, in fact, worthless, and what they are left to do is prepare for their inevitable fate which will be slow (sickness) or quick (gun shot).
My question to adoptees is: How might it be possible to reverse the mythology that it is “better” for children in the “First World”? How is it even possible to maintain such a myth? How might we describe trafficking, the foster care system, or adoption as equally revelatory of “hatred” for children?
Or should I just leave this as a rhetorical question?
Transracialeyes 
Perhaps is the love of profit, money and greed which predominate rather than actual hatred of children, that is a byproduct or the appearance of it.Maybe it is the lack of rights given children worldwide that prevails and underpins the adoption racket.While things like being rich and acquisitive are valued over being happy and living a good life,children’s lives never will be.The mythology seems to tell us it is better for all, not just children, in the ‘First World’ where consumerism, bigpharma, the banks and the 1% are amongst the things considered important. It could change but it probably won’t.Those with the power rarely allow it to be wrested from them.
someone said : “if we are incapable of building a good system for everyone, then we dont like our children “. So true loving someone is not only giving kisses or material gifts ……..