I've seen the arguments people face single parents looking to start a family through adoption: we should "Save our Own" first.
Meaning, we should adopt from within the USA before going elsewhere.
I can see the logic there. Its important to adopt children from within the Foster Care system within our own country. Its also important to provide homes for children in developing nations who otherwise wouldn't have a home. Which is better? Its hard to say. I think each case is genuinely personal.
If I decide to adopt from the Congo and bring in a child who would likely die without my help, is this a stronger pull than adopting a child from the foster care system in the states who otherwise might not be adopted?
I kind of think so. There are more people adopting children in the USA than in other developing countries. If I was in a position to adopt a child in the USA, I would do it! Sadly, thats not a real possibility for here in Utah since I'm still navigating and learning about the process here. Its sad and unfortunate but some of the rules in Utah are a bit biased and unfair. Favoring typical families to an atypical one.
However, I've had a few people say to me that adopting from outside the USA is selfish and I should be more patriotic and adopt from within. And then I remind them that the purpose of doing this is also to provide a home for a child who wouldn't have one... regardless of where the child is coming from, that child is going to get a home with me if I'm ever given an opportunity.