Th e Unique Value of Adoption Tina Rulli Adoption can provide a child with the critical resource of a stable, loving family, which institutional and foster care fail to provide. Absent a stable family and the benefi ts of constant care and attention, children are at risk for severe physical, cognitive, and emotional defi cits. Adoption can not only prevent these defi cits of institutional care, but for those children who experience neglect and abuse prior to adoption, it is the best cure ( IJzendoorn and Juff er, 2006 ). In general, adoption is a good thing for children in need of a family. But adoption off ers unique value for parents , too. Th ough adoption is oft en considered a second best or even last resort for parents in making their families, this view fails to recognize the special value of adoption in its own right. Th is topic is almost entirely ignored in the philosophical literature. Th us, I will explore here the unique value of adoption. I begin by noting that the selective focus on the value of adoption for only those people pursuing assisted reproductive technologies employs the hidden assumption that adoption is second best to procreation. I will focus on the value of adoption for all prospective parents. My discussion is driven primarily by refl ection upon non-relative adoptions, that is, adoption of children not previously a part of one's extended family. Non-relative adoptions contrast with intrafamilial adoptions, where a grandmother adopts a grandchild, for instance, or a brother adopts the child of his sister. More generally, adoption is an alternative to procreation-with a notable exception. For some same-sex couples who use artifi cial reproductive technologies to create a child, the partner who does not contribute a gamete to the process must adopt the child. 1 My focus will be on non-relative adoptions that are not also procreative in this way. Th at is, the arguments off ered here are guided by my refl ections on adoptions that involve already existing children who are not related to their adoptive parents. 1 Th e adoption requirement varies by jurisdiction. For discussion of this important challenge to the adoption–procreation binary, see Julie Crawford (in this volume). oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 109 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 110 TINA RULLI In adopting a child, one typically has the opportunity meet a specifi c need that all children have-the need for a family. Clearly, meeting this need is valuable for adopted children, but adopted parents may also place value in this fact and be motivated, in part, to adopt for this reason. In contrast, procreation does not share this important moral value, for a child not-created is not a child in need of anything at all. Aft er exploring the philosophical issue, I assess the empirical complexities of this claim, which have proven controversial in adoption and children's advocacy circles. While adoption practices, generally speaking, can play a role in addressing the needs of children worldwide, individual prospective parents face the complex task of determining where they can best contribute their eff orts in order to help children in genuine need of families, while not contributing to harms or exacerbating existing injustices. Next, I argue that since most of the reasons in favour of procreation are self-referential-i.e. they locate the value of having a biological child in the child's connection to one's own body or genes-adoption is valuable for the very opposite reason. Adoption provides a morally noble opportunity to extend to a stranger benefi ts usually withheld for one's genetic kin. In adoption, one's relationship to one's child is defi ned solely through a history of love and care rather than through bodily connection. As such, adoption off ers a unique possibility in which impartial concern for an other can be the starting point for a lifetime of love and care. I discuss this possibility against the objection that adoptions involving a "rescue" motivation are problematic. Along the way, I demonstrate how adoption challenges a strictly dichotomous understanding of impartial and partial reasons for action. In the fi nal section, I refl ect on the transformative power that adoption can have for parents' own conception of self and family. My goal is to highlight the unique value of adoption, challenging the widespread assumption that it has second-best status to procreation. Indeed we'll see that adoption is oft entimes superior to procreation, providing a pure and exemplary model of what is most valuable about parenthood. However, making a superiority argument is not my primary aim here. I hope to show that adoption is a valuable option for all parents to consider and that it off ers unique value of its own. Focusing on Adoption's Value for All Prospective Parents Th e majority of the sparse philosophical literature on adoption focuses on adoption as an option for infertile, subfertile, single, or homosexual people-a diverse group that I'll loosely refer to as those who cannot easily procreate. In this context, adoption is typically considered an alternative to using assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Th e narrow focus on adoption as valuable for those who cannot easily procreate expresses the widely held and largely undefended belief that adoption is a second-best alternative to biological procreation for having children. Th e underlying assumption is that oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 110 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 111 only those who cannot biologically procreate without assistance would (or should) seriously consider adoption. 2 But, as I will show, many of the reasons for choosing adoption over ART apply generally to favour adoption over procreation. Adoption is a valuable option for all people who desire to parent children regardless of their fertility status. One might think the narrow focus on the value of adoption for only those pursuing ART is justifi ed because both ART and adoption require signifi cant fi nancial resources. Th is commonality makes adoption an obvious alternative to using ART. Consider, for instance, the argument that those who would use ART, in particular, have a moral duty to adopt children rather than spend resources on pursuing procreation ( Petersen, 2002 ). 3 Th e argument relies upon the claim that resources spent on ART could be spent on adoption. Since only in adopting do these resources go to an existing child who needs them, some argue that people should adopt rather than pursue ART. 4 Th is argument arises because the resources spent on ART are conspicuous. As such, the range of options-spend the money on ART or spend the money on adoption-is salient. Yet, anyone who chooses to become a parent has the parental resource- the money, time, emotional commitment, and care-to give to a child who needs it. Th is is the critical resource some existing children lack. One could put this resource towards a child of one's own creation or give it to an adopted child. Th at is, adoption is no less an alternative to easy procreation, though the option may be less salient. Granted, adoption may cost more than easy procreation, and these costs may trump a duty to adopt for many people; but I'm not defending a duty to adopt here. I'm arguing that adoption should be considered a valuable alternative to procreation more generally. It should not automatically be assumed to be second-best. For that reason, my discussion of the value of adoption applies to prospective parents generally, not simply to those facing the choice between adoption or ART. 5 2 Th is assumption is expressed in Smilansky (1995 : 44), where he asserts that an argument for adoption instead of procreation (due to concerns about overpopulation) is not worth considering since there is no likelihood that it would be widely accepted. Th e view is further expressed in Hursthouse (1987 : 309), where she states: "But it is, and would be, odd to want to have a child (i.e. be a parent) as an end in itself (i.e. not to secure the inheritance nor as a publicity stunt) without at all wanting to have one's own child (in the biological sense)." 3 For evidence that this view is held by the public at large, see the comments sections of the following article/blogs, where the commenters frequently express variations on the opinion that the infertile should adopt rather than create children using ART. See Belkin (2009a and b) and Landau and Gumbrecht (2010) . 4 Cf. Rivera-López (2006) , responding to Petersen (2002) , rejects a targeted duty of sub-fertile parents to adopt children. He concludes that they are excused from this putative duty, given that the solitary focus on them is unfair. I do not share this conclusion; also consistent with fairness is a general expansion of the scope of a putative duty to adopt to include all prospective parents. 5 I want to explicitly recognize that some same-sex couples may choose ART because they are, for all practical and legal purposes, prevented from pursuing adoption. oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 111 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 112 TINA RULLI Helping a Child in Need One of the greatest values of adoption is that one can help a child in need of a family. Th is is obviously valuable to the child; but this fact can be valuable to and valued by adoptive parents. One may be motivated to adopt out of recognition of this fact, and one may deeply value this feature of adoption. Th ere is both a philosophical and an empirical aspect to the claim that adoption helps a child in need of a family. I consider them in turn. But fi rst, let me say more about the concept of need employed here. I have in mind Joel Feinberg's (1973 : 111) defi nition of need, where, "in a general sense to say that S needs X is to say simply that if he doesn't have X he will be harmed." Th is defi nition captures the important distinction between need and mere wants or desires. With unmet needs, a person comes to harm. Further, the need children have for a stable family is what I'll call a critical need. By this, I mean the fulfi lment of that need is vital to the child's proper emotional and physical development. All children need stable, loving families. Some however, have extant need, i.e. this need is currently unfulfi lled or is in imminent danger of going unfulfi lled. Many of the children with extant need have parents who are unable or unwilling to provide for them. In this way, they are in need of new families. Yet some children are orphans and have no existing families at all. Recognizing the diffi culty of choosing an umbrella term for the children in question, I will speak of children in need of families . Th is is not to diminish the importance of the existing families of origin who may continue to play an important role in the children's lives. What these children need, even so, is a family that is able to raise them. Further, I indicate the specifi c need for a family , for these children may or may not otherwise be needy . Th e opportunity to help a child in need of a family is a value unique to adoption; for in procreation one does not help a child in need of a family (or anything else). What one does is create a child, who is by her very nature vulnerable and needy in her dependence upon another to survive, and then she benefi ts the child with all the goods of parenthood. Th at is, one creates the need and then (hopefully) satisfi es it. Only adoption helps an existing child with an unmet need. Some will argue that in procreating you still benefi t a child by bringing her into existence ( Hare, 1975 ). Proponents of this unintuitive claim appeal to the more intuitively plausible possibility to harm a person by bringing her into existence . Many people think that creating a person who will endure terrible and incurable suff ering harms that person. If this is possible, then for reasons of symmetry, we should at least grant the possibility that creating a child who will have a happy life benefi ts her. Further, the possibility to benefi t a person by bringing her into existence can explain people's gratitude for their existence ( Hare, 1975 : 219). Many say the gift of life is the greatest benefi t of all. Advocates of this view may argue that the benefi t bestowed through procreation is similar to the benefi t of adoption, undermining my claim that the adoption benefi t is unique. Th ey might say: both procreation and adoption provide very important, large benefi ts to a child. oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 112 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 113 Even if we grant that people can benefi t others by bringing them into existence, this is no challenge to the claim that the adoption benefi t is unique. For only in adopting do you meet an unmet need. Th at is, only in adopting do you alleviate an extant harm or prevent one from occurring. Should you choose not to procreate there is no child who is harmed for not coming to exist; there is no child at all. And this diff erence matters: for not existing at all is not bad for "the person" who does not exist. But an existing person lacking or losing what he critically needs-in this case, a stable, loving family- is bad for that person. Th us, only in adopting can you respond to or prevent a very bad situation for a person. Th e opportunity to critically improve an existing person's life is the unique benefi t off ered by adoption as opposed to whatever other kind of putative benefi t one can confer by procreation. Attempting to diminish my claim, one might argue that the putative benefi t of existence is necessary for and prior to the possibility of helping a person in need. One needs the benefi t of coming to exist in order to enjoy any other benefi ts at all. Th us, my opponent may argue, I cannot so easily talk about the benefi t of adoption without giving equal attention to the benefi t of procreation, for existence itself precedes all other kinds of benefi t. Coming into existence is necessary for us to receive the other goods of life. But this does not mean that it is more important than those benefi ts that are possible only aft er a person exists, i.e. those that make her life worth living. For consider, without these other benefi ts-e.g. the benefi ts of food, shelter, love, and family-the putative benefi t of coming into existence is no benefi t at all. We are born vulnerable, dependent, and needy; we need more than existence alone to have happy lives. Coming-to-exist could only be counted a benefi t (if one at all) if one receives the other benefi ts that make one's life worth living. Bare existence of a person is not by itself a benefi t. In fact, absent any other benefi ts, bare existence is suffi cient to ensure that the child is harmed by coming to exist. Th us, the benefi ts subsequent to coming to exist are what ultimately matter when we claim that existence is benefi cial for someone. It is clear that the critical benefi t provided in procreation is not solely the putative benefi t bestowed in creating a child-it is that bestowed in parenting a child and ensuring that she has all the goods that make her life worth living. Th e unique value in adoption arises out of recognition that we can give this benefi t to an existing person in need of that exact good. In contrast, procreation doesn't meet needs; it creates them. Th e unique value of adoption is further supported by comparison with the value of child-bearing. Rosalind Hursthouse (1987 : 309) argues that bearing children is intrinsically worthwhile. She claims that the value of having children is "inextricably bound up" with the belief that death is evil, life is a benefi t, murder is wrong, and each life is uniquely valuable. Our reverence for child-bearing is a refl ection of the larger thematic belief in the "sanctity of life"-or in more secular terms, the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable ( Hursthouse, 1987 : 309–10). Creating and then bringing a child to term in one's body is an activity that requires substantial sacrifi ce on the part of the pregnant woman. To "do it well," as Hursthouse oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 113 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 114 TINA RULLI (1987 : 315) says, requires "courage, fortitude and endurance." Bearing children takes considerable virtue in order to achieve the important end of new human life. Hursthouse (1987 : 315) states: "It is in this connection that one can see why it is tempting to regard bearing a child as analogous to sacrifi cing a fair amount of time and eff ort to saving someone's life." In both pregnancy and saving a life, a person takes on considerable burden as a virtuous response to the intrinsic value of human life. In this case, the relation between the labours of pregnancy and those of life-saving sacrifi ce is metaphorical. Th ough no life is saved in creating and bearing a child, a life is preserved by and entirely dependent upon the pregnant woman who undertakes her pregnancy with virtue. Bearing a child is like saving a life. Hursthouse (1987 : 315) continues: What is done, is, I claim, not just worthwhile and signifi cant but morally worthwhile and signifi cant, because of its connection with, on the one hand, the value or sanctity of life and, on the other, with what I have roughly categorized as "family life"-the fi eld of our closest relationships with other people. For these two areas are the concern of morality if anything is. Th e value in child-bearing is not found merely in its relation to the sanctity of life, but also in its aim of love and family. Hursthouse (1987 : 315) explains: "In bearing the child, the woman makes it particularly and peculiarly hers, part of her life-cycle, her family. In so doing, she enriches her own life and that of those who form part of it." I will not evaluate or reject Hursthouse's account of the value of child-bearing. Rather, I want to leverage it as an argument for the value of adoption. If there is value in an activity that both expresses regard for the sanctity of human life and the value of love and family-making a person one's own- then adoption is a paradigm such activity. In many ways, adoption and maintaining pregnancy are morally similar. Both demonstrate deep regard for the sanctity of life. Adopting provides a benefi t critical to a life going well. Maintaining a pregnancy ensures that the nascent life inside a woman's body will continue and fl ourish. In fact, parenting itself is one among this kind of activity, for in feeding, loving, and providing for our dependent children, we preserve their lives. Yet, in many cases (not all, of course) the preserving of a life inside one's body during pregnancy is part of a greater decision to bring about that life in the fi rst place. In such cases, it is more accurate to consider pregnancy as part of creating a life- making a life where previously there was none-rather than saving a life-recognizing existing critical need and providing what is necessary to make that life go well. Th ere may be value in creating life, and this may be value that is tied to the greater theme of honouring the sanctity of human life. I'm not denying any of this. But the metaphor from pregnancy to saving lives is weakened. In contrast, in adopting a child one is saving the life of an existing child. Th ough adoption is not always a life or death matter ; it is a critical matter. It is about providing to a child a benefi t that may make the diff erence between a life that goes well and one oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 114 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 115 with exceptional hardship, struggle, and suff ering. People consider their lives saved when someone provides them with critically needed support, helps them fi nd the right path in life, or ensures their life is lived to its potential. In adopting, one undertakes considerable sacrifi ce to critically improve a life, to save a life in this way. Moreover, we know that adopted children are considered their parents own children ; they are fully integrated into their parents' lives and families ( Smith, 2005 ). If for Hursthouse, the deep value of pregnancy is through its connection to the saving of lives and the value of family, then adoption satisfi es these criteria directly. Pregnancy, as a part of creation, satisfi es the criteria only by the stretch of metaphor. Th is brings about an interesting inversion: adoption is the paradigm example of honouring the sanctity of life and the value of family. Adoption is not second-best. Morally speaking, it is the exemplar. Let me now turn to the empirical criticisms of my claim that adoption helps a child in need of a family. In a popular exposé, E. J. Graff (2008 : 59) proclaims that: "Westerners have been sold on the myth of a world orphan crisis." We are frequently told of the "millions upon millions" of orphaned children in the world by adoption agencies, who imply that by adopting a child we can do something to address this crisis. Graff counters this claim, noting that in fact there are waiting lists for adoption of healthy infants both in the United States and abroad. Prospective adoptive parents may be vying for the same limited pool of healthy infants. Th us, Graff 's fi rst criticism is that it is misleading to characterize adoption as helping children in need of families. Th e adoptable children-healthy infants, by Graff 's defi nition-will be adopted one way or another, if not by you, then by one of the other many prospective adoptive parents. 6 Graff 's second charge is more troublesome. Instead of a problem fi nding homes for children in need of families, there is a money-driven industry for fi nding children for adoptive homes ( Graff , 2008 ). We might attempt to address Graff 's concerns by fi rst agreeing on the number of legally adoptable children worldwide. But determination of an adoptability statistic is fraught with empirical complications. As a practical matter, an estimated 45 million births go undocumented each year in the developing world ( Oreskovic and Maskew, 2008 : 78). Th ese children have no clear legal status, let alone any clear adoptability status. Also, many children institutionalized in orphanages have living biological parents, which can complicate or obscure their legal adoptability status. (Regardless, many of them have no parents in any practical or normative sense of the term: Bartholet, 2007 : 95.) Additionally, settling on an adoptability statistic is an inextricably value-laden determination. On one side, critics of international adoption worry that any adoptability statistic is infl ated, since, they contend, it will count many children who would not be relinquished by their parents but for the "baby market" ( Graff , 2008 ; Oreskovic 6 See also Oreskovic and Maskew (2008 , pp. 80-81). oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 115 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 116 TINA RULLI and Maskew, 2008 ). On the other side, there are those who argue that the backlash against international adoption has rendered many children in need of adoption unavailable ( Bartholet, 2007 ). Recently, the number of international adoptions, which consistently increased over the past several decades, has sharply dropped off ( Carlson, 2010 /11: 734). Th is is in part due to the closing of international adoption by some "sending" countries as a result of national pride and shaming; 7 it is partially due to national "subsidiarity," the view that local placement of children should take priority over international placement ( Carlson, 2010 /11: 735); 8 and it is partially due to the active campaigning of certain children's welfare groups that eye international adoption with suspicion due to the risks of child traffi cking and exploitation of birth parents. 9 Restrictions on adoptions for these reasons involve prior value judgements about adoption. Th ere is the judgement, for instance, that preventing traffi cking abuses should take precedence over placing children in adoptive families, i.e. that preventing active harms is morally more important than remedying harms through rescue. Th ere is the view that children "belong" in their countries of origin, even if this means they will stay in subpar institutional or foster care. Th ere is also the assumption by Graff and others that only healthy infants should count as adoptable , given the assumption that only they are desirable to prospective adopters. 10 Th e number of children available for adoption is directly impacted by prior value-laden opinions about adoption and adoptability. If we are to assess the value of adoption by looking to the numbers of children who could be helped by widespread adoption practices, this number cannot already presuppose a judgement about the value of adoption. It may be true that there are waiting lists, but this is the artifact of adoption opposition from many sides. We cannot then cite this artifact of adoption opposition as an argument against the importance of adoption. Th ough many will dispute the number of adoptable children, "the certainly true and important answer is that the number of children who would almost certainly benefi t from adoption far exceeds the number of prospective adoptive parents" ( Carlson, 2010 /11: 735). An estimated 8 million children live in institutions (Secretary-General, 2006). Millions more children lack any form of stable parental care. If only a small 7 e.g. South Korea restricted international adoptions aft er the 1988 Olympics in Seoul due to embarrassment about the perception that it was the world's leading "exporter" of children ( Fisher, 2003 : 344). Romania's complete ban on international adoption was connected to their bid for entry into the European Union ( Carlson, 2010 /11: 741). Most recently the Russian ban on American adoptions of Russian children was widely seen as a political response to the US passage of the Magnitsky Act (2012). 8 Subsidiarity is endorsed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. Subsidiarity, though open to some interpretation, sees intercountry adoption as a last resort for orphans. Th e Hague Convention moves intercountry adoption up one rung in priority for those countries that have signed the convention (only half of "sending" countries). 9 UNICEF is one such prominent organization. 10 It is notable that special needs adoptions constitute more than one quarter of all unrelated adoptions in the United States. See Fisher (2003 : 339). Th ere are waiting lists for adoption of children with Down's syndrome and for other children who were once deemed unadoptable. See Bartholet (2000 : 180). oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 116 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 117 fraction of these children were available for adoption, now or with foreseeable policy changes, this would plausibly exceed the number of annual adoptions-only 30,000 international adoptions occur each year ( Bartholet, 2007 : 167). In the US alone, there were 107,000 children who were legally adoptable in 2010 (US Dept. HHS, 2011). Roughly only half were adopted. Many more are in the foster care system, unavailable for adoption given current legal and institutional barriers that view adoption as a low priority, second to keeping biological families intact. Th e numbers clearly reveal that a very large number of children could benefi t from adoption . To focus only on those who are clearly, legally adoptable is to ignore the millions who have fallen through the cracks in the system. Graff 's fi rst criticism does not support abandoning adoption, rather it supports changing adoption institutions and practices so that more children are helped by adoption. Graff cites the prevalence of older aged children or children with special needs in the adoptability pool as a sober reminder to naïve, prospective adopters that it is not healthy infants who need rescuing. Th is fact is meant to quell the pro-adoption rhetoric. But this criticism takes such facts as inalterable features of our world. First, it overlooks the possibility of encouraging prospective parents to adopt older children or children with special needs and the possibility to provide institutional support to people who do so. Second, it ignores the potential for widespread adoption reform that would allow at least some of these children-whose older age and special needs can be aggravated by a sluggish and inadequate child welfare system-to fi nd families at earlier ages, before some preventable cognitive defi cits form ( Carlson, 2010 /11: 771). Instead of abandoning adoption as part of the solution, we need institutional reforms that will ensure more children in need of adoption are available for adoption. But, in light of Graff 's criticisms, what do we say to those people who are thinking of adopting now? First, the fact that a child has a good chance of being adopted by someone does not undermine the fact that, if you adopt that child, you will have met a critical need of that child. If you pull a drowning child out of a swimming pool, it is no less the case that you helped a child in need if there are also others willing to help out. Graff 's concern about adoption demand does not undermine the main claim that adoption is valuable because it can help a child in need of a family. Yet we can characterize some children's need for a family as greater than others, if we take into account the alternatives readily available to them and their overall chance of being adopted. Cases involving children who are older or have special needs are the most urgent. Perhaps, the reasons to help a child and the corresponding value of adoption will be greater for those children who have the most urgent need. Prospective parents can count the degree of a child's need for a family as one factor among many in guiding their decision to become parents. But any case of meeting critical need has important value. Second, the willingness of parents to adopt children is a power that could be leveraged in changing institutions and laws so as to make more children available for adoption. We cannot simply wait for these changes. Adoption will not be seen as a part oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 117 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 118 TINA RULLI of the solution to children's needs if parents are not willing to adopt children at all. Convincing people of the value of adoption is in the service of this good. Th is brings us to Graff 's second concern about the role prospective adopters play in contributing to illicit "baby markets." Th ere is a lively debate about the actual prevalence of illicit adoption practices and the appropriate response to them. 11 I cannot get into this debate here. But a genuine concern about illicit adoption practices is consistent with and endorsed by my position here: if a value of adoption is that it helps children in need of a family, clearly this value is not realized if any particular adoption is "helping" a child where no help was needed or if it is actively harming a child or her birth family. But I emphasize: concerns about unscrupulous adoption practices warrant closer scrutiny of those practices and vigilance by prospective adopters, not abandonment of the practices altogether. Prospective adopters have the responsibility to choose and support adoption practices that are ethical. Parents should not be naïve about the risks of exploitative adoption practices or baby-traffi cking. Prospective adopters must take care in selecting the adoption agencies they will work with and scrutinizing the adoption practices in the country from which they will adopt. Adoption critics raise important worries for prospective adopters to consider. Th is does not, however, undermine the possibility for adoption's unique value. Adoption can help a child in need of a family. As we've seen, this value is not a given and its value might be variable. We have a responsibility to promote adoption practices that reach the children in greatest need and that do not exacerbate existing injustices or create harms through illicit adoption practices. Loving a Stranger as One's Own Some of the reasons off ered in favour of procreation as the best way to build a family can be leveraged in turn as reasons in favour of the unique value in adoption. People commonly appeal to the value in having children who share a biological relationship with the parents through the bodily connection a woman has with her child in utero and the genetic connection both parents share with their off spring. 12 A biological child is in some sense, they say, a part of each of them. Th e child shares with them a similar basis of genetic identity, and many think genes are predominantly what make us who we are . Th is is taken as a strong reason to favour procreation over adoption; for we should want our children to be connected to us in this specifi c way. Why this is so is typically left unexplained; perhaps it is self-evident for most people. Perhaps genetic similarity is intrinsically valuable. Some cite the putatively higher probability a genetically related child has of being physically and psychologically similar to her parents. Th e underlying assumption is that it is better that parents and children resemble each 11 For a sample of this debate, see Oreskovic and Maskew (2008) ; Bartholet (2007) ; Carlson (2010 /11). 12 Works that raise some of the following themes or claims include: Velleman (2008) ; Kolodny (2010) ; Tooley (1999) ; Hursthouse (1987) . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 118 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 119 other in these ways. Others claim that we have a greater inclination to love and attach to children who are biologically and genetically connected to us. I discuss these arguments in another paper, where I challenge the empirical and moral assumptions underlying the preference for biological children. 13 I won't repeat that discussion here. 14 Instead, I want to fl ip the argument on its end. If there is value in having genetically related children for the reasons off ered above, then for these same reasons , adoption presents us with a unique and morally valuable prospect. 15 In adopting children, given that, putatively, none of these mentioned values are present, we have an opportunity to share one of the most intimate and loving human relationships with a stranger. 16 Th e adopted child is not attached to us by body or genetic identity; her existence is not the product of our actions or choices. We may not share the same personality traits, look, ethnicity, culture, or place of origin with this child. We may lack entirely a connection with this child other than that of common humanity. Yet, for all that, we may invite these children into our families. For these reasons adoption is a practice of important and unique moral value. Th e parent–child relationship, typically and ideally conceived of (by some) as a relationship grounded in the similar genetic identities of each, is one of the most intimate personal connections humans can have. To willingly share this deeply intimate connection with a stranger is morally exemplary. It demonstrates the far range of possibility for human connection between strangers and the potential for intense, loving regard for an other in a context in which, typically, this very otherness is defi ned out of the relationship. Moreover, since adoption involves children-all of who by their nature are needy and dependent upon adults for their care-adoption exemplifi es the uniquely human capacity for responding to vulnerability, wherever it may occur. In adopting a child, one is not limited in one's expectations about the child's future possibilities due to a narrow focus on the genetic determinants of a child's talents and personality. 17 A parent can stand witness to his child's development into her own person, a person bound to him in love, not in body. Indeed, an adopted child becomes one's own by relation and history only; not because she is linked to one's biological identity or is the product of one's own creation, or a natural possession of sorts. She becomes one's own through a relationship that is fostered over time, through care and love. Adoption reminds us that it is this relation of intimacy that should ground our use of possessive speech when speaking of personal relations, i.e. when we say that a person is one of "ours" or is "mine" ( Smith, 2005 ; de Gaynesford, 2010 : 87). People who are mine 13 In "Preferring a Genetically-Related Child," unpublished manuscript. 14 For some other works addressing and rebutting these concerns see: Haslanger (2009) ; Lotz (2008) ; Witt (2005) . 15 Th is general idea was suggested to me in conversation with Sally Haslanger. What follows is my own analysis. 16 Again, not all adopted children are unrelated or strangers. My focus here is on unrelated adoptions. 17 Th is is not to suggest that parents genetically related to their children are necessarily so bound. oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 119 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 120 TINA RULLI are not my property; rather that this person is mine means she stands in a special relationship with me that not all others share. Possessive speech is relational speech in two senses-as relating two people and as expressing personal closeness between them. 18 Understanding our use of relational speech in this way allows for a more expansive and inclusive application of "possessive" terminology and concepts. For instance, in the parent–child relationship, intimacy can be fostered in many ways: it may grow naturally from the bond a mother has to her child in pregnancy; but it may grow solely from a history of love, aff ection, and care ( Kolodny, 2010 ). Th ere is more than one way that a child can be one's own. In sum, a unique value of adoption is in the transformation of a stranger to become a child of one's own, i.e. in choosing to love a child not previously connected to oneself through body or identity, but who will be one's child through a history of love and care. Th is value is independent of whether the child is in need of the relationship or whether the adoptive parents were motivated to adopt in part out of recognition of that need. One need not engage in moral refl ection or deliberation to enact this possibility; it can be a natural and uncalculated refl ex to extend compassion to a child in need of exactly that. Th e possibility for such generous and intimate love of an other is remarkable in itself. 19 Yet, bringing the previous section to bear on this possibility, one can choose to enter into the parental relationship with a child out of recognition of that child's need for a family. One can let impartial, other-focused concern be the starting point for a lifetime of love and care for another person. In this case, adoption can have an other-focused starting point not shared by procreative parenthood. I am not claiming that adoption is always or should always be a wholly other-focused act. For many people adopting a child fulfi ls a desire or need of theirs. 20 But I do want to draw the following distinction: arguments in favour or defence of procreation tend to emphasize the importance of the biological child's connection to oneself through genes or body. Th e value of procreation is located in the value of oneself. Th at is not to say it is primarily selfi sh or that procreative parenthood isn't also other-concerned, but the locus of value of this relationship is typically placed in self-referring terms. In contrast, those who adopt can locate the unique value of adoption in impartial concern for another. I can be motivated in part to make this child my child because she needs a family. I may also deeply desire to be a parent, but I may desire this for myself while being responsive to the moral reasons there are to share this relationship with a child who needs me. Adoptions that have some aspect of this other-concern I will call altruistic adoptions. 18 Th e level of intimacy indicated by the use of possessive speech might vary with the type of relationship in question. My relation to my acquaintance diff ers in intensity and kind from my relationship to my sister. 19 Th is is one value that all adoptions of children not genetically or biologically related to the parent share. 20 I thank Carolyn McLeod for prompting me to clarify this point. For more on the special value of the parent–child relationship to parents (procreative and adoptive), see Brighouse and Swift (in this volume). oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 120 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 121 Some worry that adopting a child out of an impartial "rescue" motivation is an inappropriate starting point for the parent–child relationship, which is not fundamentally impartial. Elizabeth Bartholet (1993 : 66), adoption scholar and adoptive parent, notes with regret that adoption agencies oft en frown upon prospective parents whose primary motivation for choosing adoption is to rescue a child. Against this concern, it's worth noting that people have biological children for far more trivial reasons, and these are rarely subjected to scrutiny. 21 Suspicion of adoptive parents' motives may be yet one more symptom of the deeply entrenched assumption that adoption has second-place status. Th e motivations for adoption are held to greater scrutiny, since adoption is considered by some people to be deviant from the norm. For them, people who would choose adoption must explain themselves. Despite my obvious scepticism, I will take some time to make sense of this objection. In the process, I can better illuminate the transformation that occurs when an adopted child becomes one's own child. First, people may worry that rescue is the wrong reason to become a parent. Parenting is far too demanding, and well-intentioned adopters wanting to "rescue" children should not be so naïve about the demands of this particular kind of rescue. But of course one who wants to adopt children should also want to be a parent. Someone will not have helped a child in need at all if she gives her a family in name only, i.e. if she fails to give the child love and care that only a person dedicated to being a parent in the fullest normative sense can provide. Th is is no objection to my claim: I'm talking about the value of adoption for prospective parents -for those who want to dedicate a signifi cant portion of their resources and time to raising a child. We would criticize the prospective procreative parent who is naïve about the extensive demands of parenthood. But that some people are problematically naïve about the demands of parenthood in this case is no objection to procreative parenthood generally. Likewise with adoptive parents, though the rescue motivation could be inappropriate if it is the sole motivation for becoming a parent, it is not obviously problematic for those with a realistic understanding of, preparation for, and desire for the demands of parenthood. Perhaps the worry is that adopters-as-rescuers may pose heavy burdens of gratitude on their children. 22 Parents who rescue children may see their relationship with their children in a fundamentally diff erent way than procreative parents, in a way that makes their children feel unduly indebted to them. Th is could negatively impact adopted children. But seeing rescue as a reason for adoption rather than procreation does not mean that the rescue relationship must come to characterize our parental relationship with 21 I suspect that criticism of adopters who are motivated to rescue children in need is an instance of do-gooder derogation- a phenomenon where some in the majority (with regard to a choice), due to anticipation of moral reproach, take a derogatory attitude towards those in a minority who claim to base their choice on moral grounds ( Minson and Monin, 2012 ). 22 Th is concern was presented to me by Marianne Novy (2010) . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 121 11/22/2013 7:04:45 PM 122 TINA RULLI our children. Adoptive families form parent–child relationships that fi t the familiar mould of parent–child relationship, characterized by the same fi lial duties, no more, no less than biological families. Moreover, biological families are not immune from an analogous worry: we oft en hear of biological parents burdening their children with the claim that they should be grateful to them for their very existence. Whatever fi lial duties may be grounded in this sentiment, we fi nd it appropriate to criticize parents if they take this demand too far. Th e fact that some biological parents act inappropriately in this regard does not count as a reason against having biological children. It counts as a reason against expecting from one's children servile gratitude. Th us, the same response in the case of adoption applies: we ought to parent with compassion and an appropriate sense of what sorts of burdens ought not to be placed on children. Ultimately, I believe the rescue objection arises due to a misconception of the relationship between the impartial and partial perspectives and the reasons generated by each. One might think that a person motivated by impartial reasons to adopt has moralized the parent–child relationship in a way that will interfere with her forming an appropriate partial, special relationship with the child. A deeper explanation of this concern will both assuage the worry and better illustrate the idea that an adopted child becomes fully his parents' own child. Philosophers are engaged in an ongoing debate about the tension in morality between the impartial and partial perspectives. 23 On one hand, morality is in its very nature about the impartial concern an agent should have for other people. Morality requires that I have regard for other people as equal subjects of moral concern. In considering what I morally ought to do, I deliberate from the impartial perspective, taking all people into account. Moral reasons speak against favouring myself and my inner circle of people. On the other hand, some paradigm moral behaviour is partial in nature. Parents should love their children, giving them extra care and attention. Th e fact that a person is my friend is a reason for giving her special attention I do not give to others. Th at somebody is mine sometimes gives me reasons to be partial towards her ( de Gaynesford, 2010 : 88). Th is is true even though all people are equally valuable. Beyond this, many believe that morality leaves room for or even requires some partial attention to ourselves. We may be permitted or required to live a good life that includes cultivating our talents and interests and pursuing our goals. Favouring one's own perspective, on this view, plays a prominent, if not essential, role in moral reasoning. Our conception of morality is fraught with tension between the impartial and partial perspectives, for they oft en come into confl ict. Th e starkest picture is one without a possibility for balancing the two perspectives: impartial morality forbids partial perspective-taking; or conversely, the privileged partial perspective cannot be overridden in any case by impartial concern for others. 23 For an excellent collection of essays on the topic, see Feltham and Cottingham (2010) . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 122 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 123 But impartial concern as the starting point for altruistic adoption need not stand in confl ict with concerns arising out of one's partial, personal perspective. Th e following discussion not only defends adoption against this charge, it shows adoption to be a counter-example to such a simplistic picture. Adoption provides an example of the possibility for reasons of partiality to proceed from impartial grounds. Th e reverse case-where genuine impartiality proceeds from partiality-is instructive. Maximilian de Gaynesford (2010 : 93) argues that the same grounds for partiality can also justify impartiality. Th e fact that you are a parent to your children provides grounds for partial treatment of them. Because you are their parent you ought to and are permitted to favour them in a range of circumstances over, for instance, the neighbour's children. Yet the very same reason grounding this relationship of partiality grounds reasons for impartial treatment between your children. Our normative conception of parenthood includes that you be fair and equal in your treatment of your children. You should do so because you are their parent. Th us, as de Gaynesford puts it, impartiality can proceed from genuine partial grounds. Th is possibility is testament to the complexity of the moral landscape, which is rigidly simplifi ed by a strict impartialist/partialist dichotomy. We should not assume that impartial treatment always has an impartial grounding. Altruistic adoption reveals the opposite possibility: reasons of partiality can be generated from impartial grounds. Prospective parents may make their decision on how to become parents by starting from an impartial standpoint. Whether they procreate or adopt, the reasons they have to do so for the sake of their child-to-be must be impartial reasons. No special relationship between the parents and their potential child exists to ground reasons of partiality to the child. Choosing to become a parent is in fact a choice to create a special relationship with a child where the special relationship itself is the partial benefi t in question. Th us, the decision to become a parent is not made from a standpoint of partiality to a particular child. Th e decision may still be (and usually is) partial to oneself, privileging one's own preferences and values in making the decision. But the point is that as it pertains to one's reasons vis-à-vis the child one will parent, this can be an impartial decision. Adoption shows us that what may have started as impartially driven concern for a stranger can seamlessly become a concern for another that is integral to and driven by one's own partial perspective. A child becomes one's own child through fostering a relationship of love and concern across time. When a person adopts a child, the care she will give to her child as a parent becomes central to her own identity and conception of self. In parenting her child, she is not rescuing that child at every moment, she is caring for her child. She is partaking in the parent–child relationship of special concern. Th e transition between the impartial and partial perspectives within the life of the agent cannot be starkly drawn. Th is insight is critical. One objection to impartialist morality is that it fails to give suffi cient weight to an individual's own concerns and interests, putting them on a par with the interests, needs, and demands of all other people. As such, critics claim that oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 123 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM 124 TINA RULLI impartialist morality generates too many demands and sacrifi ces of an individual with regard to her own important projects. Some may think that altruistic adoption poses this problem-the impartial concern for another is incompatible with suffi cient room for a person to privilege her own personal, partial sphere of action. I imagine the worry here is that a parent may come to resent the child that she "rescued." But the objection to impartialist morality cannot be just about the extent or sheer burden of the demands of impartiality. For the demands generated from the partial perspective, such as those required in raising a child, being a good friend or family member, are extensive. Indeed, there is little else more demanding than parenthood itself. Th e crucial distinction must be that the demands of strangers are in confl ict with one's space from which one pursues her important goals and projects. Th ey are imposed upon one from outside, alien to one's important life projects. In contrast, answering the demands generated by one's special relationships in part constitute a person's goals and projects. But we've seen that the picture is more complex: a stranger can be integrated into one's own personal sphere of concern, becoming one's own child. Th us, this criticism of altruistic adoption grounded in an objection to impartialist morality simply does not apply. It only arises if one thinks impartiality can never give rise to partial relationships. Adoption proves this view to be false. In short, impartially driven concern for another in altruistic adoption need not entail a parent–child relationship characterized by rescue of another person. A stranger child in need of a family can quickly become a child of one's own, generating reasons of partiality rather than impartiality. Personal Transformation I've focused on the way someone can integrate an other into her own personal, partial perspective; but her own perspective and self-conception can also be importantly altered. Further, this can be a valuable and unique transformation. Transracial adoptions are a compelling example of this possibility. John Raible (2008 : 95) reports that non-adopted, white siblings of adopted, non-white children experience "more nuanced and sophisticated understandings of the dynamics of race in our society, and a deeper appreciation for struggles against racism, both in history and in the lives of their adopted siblings, and ultimately, in their own lives." In eff ect, they are transracialized- gaining intimate and extended, vicarious experience of navigating the challenges of a racial hierarchical society. Raible's exploration of transracialized identity generalizes to the experiences of transracial adoptive parents. Sally Haslanger, in her own elaboration of the idea, suggests that for parents, this transformation is fi rst engendered through the bodily closeness that they share with their child. She explains: "Th is empathetic extension of body awareness, this attentiveness to the minute signals of another's body, [the] taking on the needs and desires of another body as if your own, perhaps especially if the other's oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 124 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 125 body is marked as diff erent, alters your own body sense" ( Haslanger, 2005 : 279). As a vivid illustration of this internalization of one's child's body, Haslanger (2005 : 279 n. 14) shares the experience of a white mother of two Korean-born adopted children who, on a trip to Korea, expresses joy in being somewhere where "everybody looks like us". Haslanger labels this phenomenon as one of having a "mixed" racial identity. If we think of racial identity as a map "that functions in a multitude of ways to guide and direct exchanges with one's social and material realities," those with mixed racial identities navigate their world by reference to more than one map-namely, that of their own race and the race of their adopted child ( Haslanger, 2005 : 283). Th is mixed identity may manifest itself in many ways. It may foster not just sympathetic but empathic understanding of racial injustice. Mixed or transracialized identity can facilitate a person's ease with and preference for social and personal relationships with diff erent-raced individuals. A person's sense of community may fundamentally change-she may be less at home in non-diverse settings. She may fi nd that same-race friends cannot relate to her specifi c concerns, for the experiences of her diff erent-raced child have altered her perspective. None of this amounts to the claim that a transracialized or mixed-race identity entails that one comes to have the same racial identity of the adopted child; but as Haslanger (2005 : 285) explains: "my day-to-day life is fi lled with their physical being and social reality, and by extension, the reality of their extended families and their racial community.. . . their realities have in an important sense become mine." Th ough transracial adoptions are the starkest example of this possibility for integrating another's identity into one's own, arguably, more general transpersonal transformations occur in adoptions of all kinds. Foremost, the adoption experience challenges a deeply entrenched cultural conception of the family as bio-genetically based. Adoptive families come to have revised notions of kinship relations as those fostered by shared histories of concern and care. Th is can happen without denying the signifi cance of bio-genetic ties; in open adoptions, families may come to include an adopted child's birth family. Th e possibility for transpersonal transformation is yet another benefi t of adoption and testament to the unique moral value of adoption; it allows us to transcend the constraints of our own accepted identities and integrate into them what was once outside or foreign to ourselves. In a way, adoption makes us bigger than our original selves; it expands us beyond our original kin and community. Conclusion Th ere is unique value for prospective parents to be found in adoption. Th is value is not limited to only those who cannot easily procreate. Adoption is a valuable alternative to procreation for all prospective parents. When we highlight what is uniquely valuable about adoption, taking it out from under the shadow of procreation, we can see it in a new light. Adoption off ers special oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 125 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM 126 TINA RULLI value to parents: it can help an existing child in need of a family, whereas procreation creates a child with needs. It is a paradigm expression of human regard for the sanctity of life and the value of family. Adoption's unique value is in sharing an intimate special relationship with a stranger, in the process making her one's own. Th e impartial moral concern for another can be integrated into one's own personal perspective and reasons for action. Adoption has transformative powers over our relation to others and our own conception of self. For these reasons, adoption could hardly be considered second best to biological procreation. In many ways, adoption is an exemplar for both the parent–child relationship and the human capacity for moral compassion. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the co-authors of this anthology for their spirited and immensely valuable engagement with my chapter. I am also grateful to Joe Millum for his helpful comments on an early draft . References Bartholet , E. ( 1993 ). Family Bonds: Adoption, Infertility, and the New World of Child Production . Boston : Beacon Press . Bartholet , E. ( 2000 ). Nobody's Children: Abuse and Neglect, Foster Drift and the Adoption Alternative . Boston : Beacon Press . Bartholet , E. ( 2007 ). International Adoption: Th oughts on Human Rights Issues. Buff alo Human Rights Law Review , 13 , 151–203 . Belkin , L. ( 2009a ) Too Many Ways to Have a Baby . New York Times , 9 Apr . Retrieved June 2013 from http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/too-many-ways-to-have-a-baby . Belkin , L. ( 2009 b). Th e Guilt of Secondary Infertility: Motherlode. Adventures in Parenting . New York Times , 30 Apr. Retrieved June 2013 from http://parenting.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/04/30/the-guilt-of-secondary-infertility . Carlson , R. ( 2010 /11). Seeking the Better Interests of Children with a New International Law of Adoption. New York Law Review , 55 , 733–79 . de Gaynesford , M. ( 2010 ). Th e Bishop, the Valet, the Wife, and the Ass: What Diff erences does it Make if Something is Mine? In B. Feltham and J. Cottingham (eds), Partiality and Impartiality: Morality, Special Relationships and the Wider World (pp. 84–97 ). New York : Oxford University Press . Feinberg , J. ( 1973 ). Social Philosophy . Englewood Cliff s, NJ : Prentice Hall . Feltham , B. , and Cottingham , J. (eds) ( 2010 ). Partiality and Impartiality: Morality, Special Relationships and the Wider World. New York : Oxford University Press . Fisher , A. P. ( 2003 ). Still "Not Quite as Good as Having your own?" Toward a Sociology of Adoption. Annual Review of Sociology , 29 , 335–61 . Graff , E. J. ( 2008 ). Th e Lie we Love. Foreign Policy. Retrieved June 2013 from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/10/15/the_lie_we_love . Hare , R. M. ( 1975 ). Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy and Public Aff airs, 4 ( 3 ), 201–22 . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 126 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM THE UNIQUE VALUE OF ADOPTION 127 Haslanger , S. ( 2005 ). You Mixed? Racial Identity without Racial Biology. In S. Haslanger and C. Witt . (eds), Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays (pp. 265–90 ). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Haslanger , S. ( 2009 ). Family, Ancestry and Self: What is the Moral Signifi cance of Biological Ties? Adoption and Culture , 2 , 91–122 . Haslanger , S. , and Witt , C. (eds) ( 2005 ). Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Hursthouse , R. ( 1987 ). Beginning Lives. New York : Basil Blackwell . IJzendoorn , M. H. van , and Juff er , F. ( 2006 ). Th e Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2006: Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for Massive Catch-Up and Plasticity in Physical, Socio-Emotional, and Cognitive Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 47 ( 12 ), 1228–45 . Kolodny , N. ( 2010 ). Which Relationships Justify Partiality? Th e Case of Parents and Children. Philosophy and Public Aff airs , 38 ( 1 ), 37–76 . Landau , E. , and Gumbrecht , J. ( 2010 ). IVF Doctors, Families Celebrate Creator's Nobel Prize. CNN Health , 4 Oct. Retrieved June 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/04/ ivf.fertility.babies.nobel/index.html?hpt=C1 . Lotz , M. ( 2008 ). Overstating the Biological: Geneticism and Essentialism in Social Cloning and Social Sex Selection. In J. Th ompson and L. Skene (eds), Th e Sorting Society: Th e Ethics of Genetic Testing and Th erapy (pp. 133–48 ). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Magnitsky Act [Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012], 2012 HR 6156, 112th. (2012). Retrieved July 2013 from http://www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6156enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr6156enr.pdf . Minson , J. A. , and Monin , B. ( 2012 ). Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally-Motivated Minorities to Diff use Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 3 ( 2 ), 200–7 . Novy , M. ( 2010 ). Newsletter for the Alliance for the Study of Adoption and Culture <http:// www.adoptionandculture.org> (Fall). Oreskovic , J. , and Maskew , T. ( 2008 ). Red Th read or Slender Reed: Deconstructing Prof. Barthlet's Mythology of International Adoption. Buff alo Human Rights Law Review , 14 , 71–128 . Petersen , T. S. ( 2002 ). Th e Claim from Adoption. Bioethics , 16 , 353–75 . Raible , J. W. ( 2008 ). Real Brothers, Real Sisters: Learning from the White Siblings of Transracial Adoptees. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless , 17 ( 1–2 ), 87–105 . Rivera-López , E. ( 2006 ). Th e Claim from Adoption Revisited. Bioethics , 20 ( 6 ), 319–25 . Secretary-General (2006). Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children. Delivered to the General Assembly, 29 Aug. UN Doc A/61/299. Retrieved June 2013 from http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports/ SG_violencestudy_en.pdf . Smilansky , S. ( 1995 ). Is there a Moral Obligation to Have Children? Journal of Applied Philosophy , 12 ( 1 ), 41–53 . Smith , J. F. ( 2005 ). A child of one's own: A Moral Assessment of Property Concepts in Adoption. In S. Haslanger and C. Witt (eds), Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays (pp. 112–31 ). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . Tooley , M. ( 1999 ). Th e Moral Status of the Cloning of Humans. Monash Bioethics Review, 18 , 27–49 . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 127 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM 128 TINA RULLI US Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS report #18), 20 June. FY 2010 data. Retrieved June 2013 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/ afcars . Velleman , J. D. ( 2008 ). Persons in Prospect II: Th e Gift of Life. Philosophy and Public Aff airs, 36 , 245–66 . Witt , C. ( 2005 ). Family Resemblances: Adoption, Personal Identity, and Genetic Essentialism. In S. Haslanger and C. Witt (eds), Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays (pp. 135–44 ). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press . oxfordhb-9780199656066.indd 128 11/22/2013 7:04:46 PM