Adoption of children: there is no place like home

Alexey Makarkin, political analyst

A survey by VTsIOM regarding a possible ban on foreign adoption showed that the majority of Russian society continues to be against such adoption, although with a generational gap that also manifests itself in other cases. Total against 60%, for - 32%. In the group of 18-24 years old, the overwhelming majority is in favor of adoption - 76%, in the group of 25-34 years old, opinions were divided almost in half (45-48%) with a slight majority in the direction of opponents. Among the 35-44-year-olds, the gap is somewhat larger (41-49%), but further on, the dominance of opponents is obvious. Among 45-59-year-olds, 67% are against, and 60+ - 81%.

There are two more demarcations - center-regions and by level of education. For international adoption, 53% of residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg and 40% of people with higher education. The farther from the capitals and the lower the level of education, the more opponents of such adoption.

The wording of the question is interesting: “There are different points of view on the adoption of children from Russia by foreign citizens. Some believe that children can be given up for adoption to foreign citizens, as for children this is a chance to find a family. Others believe that children should stay in Russia, even if they stay in orphanages. Which point of view is closer to you? That is, the respondents were directly told about the chance to find a family and orphanages, but this practically did not affect their opinions.

Another point is interesting. When the first law restricting foreign adoption was passed a decade ago, as part of its promotion in the public space, much was said about the fact that the life and health of Russian children are under threat in the United States. But in 2013, the most popular motivation was the most related not to the humanitarian aspect, but to patriotism – the state should raise its own children, the children should be in Russia (24%). In general, where he was born, he came in handy there. Now the situation has not changed - a similar answer is again in the lead, it was chosen by 25% of respondents.

It seems that the arguments about the life and health of children act rather on the hesitant respondents who are trying to understand where it will be better for children. And the solid loyalist core comes from statist considerations and the inadmissibility of the fact that "our" child will be brought up in accordance with "their" values - there is very little empathy in this environment.