If you adopt a health foreign baby it is because the baby was kidnapped from his loving parents and then a corrupt judge signed off on it.

The above isn't always true, but if you didn't investigate the agency deeply you should assume it is. This is why international adoptions are so hard, many counties have caught on and given up on giving the few kids who do need real homes help.

> the few kids who do need real homes

You have to be kidding me. Do you know how many kids are literal orphans in sub-saharan Africa?

Did you know that UNICEF defines "orphan" as a child with at least one dead parent? Globally there are estimated to be about 15 million "double orphans", and 90% of them live with extended family. Of those that don't, frequently there is extended family or at least known families of their own culture/ethnicity/country who could take them in if given financial support - which is not only cheaper than adopting them from the US, but doesn't cut their ties to home. Aside from that, more than 90% are over the age of 5. Almost none are actually babies, and of course children orphaned at birth may have inherited AIDS or have other health issues due to whatever killed their parents. Adopting a healthy foreign baby from the US is more likely than not to involve some form of human rights violation just to make them available to you. https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/orphan-crisis-sub-sahara...

https://www.unicef.org/media/orphans

So I assume you also advocate prohibiting mothers giving their children up for adoption in the US?

Meanwhile, we literally sell babies with impunity which we euphemistically call "surrogacy."

That is a bizarre and incorrect assumption, but if you weren't trying to start a fight then you might have made the reasonable assumption that I think there are problems with the way adoptions work in the US as well, and if you want to adopt within the US you should still be prepared to put a lot of work in to identifying the ethical way to do so. Start with the assumption that you should absolutely not be planning to move the child to a different country or even state as soon as you've adopted.

The difference between us is that I believe in adoption – where a child becomes part of a new family - whereas you apparently do not.

Moving is hard on children, not so much on infants, much more so on teens.

But the idea that parents ought to be prohibited from moving is a truly radical idea.

The difference between us is that you are making an effort to jump to the stupidest possible claim you can think of, like here where you have managed to read "should not plan to" and twisted it into "should be prohibited from".

When you say that people need to be ethical, and then give your only example and say that they “absolutely should not...” I think it’s fair to say your claim is that it should not be done.

No. I know that most counties won't let you adopt those orphans though because of how hard it is to be sure they really are.

A relative adopted a child and the social worker advised against international adoptions for this problem.

Eventually they adopted a 100% healthy local child after 5-6 years of legal nightmare as it's pretty complex navigate through all requirements plus wait your turn.