Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting?

[aspara-gus]

I am very interested in your thoughts.

[kallefs]

I don't think the poll thingy is working.

[vegan hal]

it's subjective. some people shouldn't have any kids (adopted or biological) period, but do, and then don't love and raise them to be productive members of society. I've chosen not to have any children. never wavered. But I have a sweet niece and two nephews who i adore.

[fredrikw]

Ok, this is a topic that has been covered before, and it's one that easily get heated, so take it easy ok?

[Fallen_Horse]

Poll is busted, but I was going for 'it depends'. Personally I think you shouldn't bring in more people to the world other than keeping the population constant, so the limit for me and my spouse would be 2 biological kids. But I would be just as happy with 1 or 0 biological, and up to maybe 3 adopted. Raising a kid is hell, so no matter where they were from I would want to make sure I could devote enough time, energy, and money to raising them...

[Goob]

I will never have my own children because I believe the population needs to be going down. But, I wouldn't adopt either. So, I could be considered the most selfish of all the groups. But, between the two, everyone know that adoption is the better choice if everything else were equal.

The problem is that everything else isn't equal, so it doesn't really matter so much. I've known a few people that have adopted children, including my parents. It is not as easy as some people seem to think and actually takes longer and costs more than having your own baby. Lots of intrusion into your private life as well, even after you get to bring the child home. And, if you have other children, expect a stranger to ask them if they have been molested and other such things.

Also, for some reason I expect problems with vegans trying to adopt based on the shit my parents had to go through. I haven't looked into it because I'm not at all interested, but I do know lots of countries consider vegan children abuse victims, so it will be an issue for at least some people.

[thestoatyone]

No. But Adoption should be encouraged. That said, as has been mentioned it takes guts and commitment to do adoption properly, and it ain't something you want to do a half-arsed job of. I'm taking it slow, and erring on the side of caution....

[Fallen_Horse]

I will never have my own children because I believe the population needs to be going down.

I agree that the population needs to go down, but it must go down slowly, otherwise there could be large economic implications...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#The_.22four-two-one.22_problem

[Konstantin]

I will never have my own children because I believe the population needs to be going down.

I agree that the population needs to go down, but it must go down slowly, otherwise there could be large economic implications...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#The_.22four-two-one.22_problem

Yes falling pops could have big problems, but in the Western world getting close to 1 child per woman is a long way off. There's a lot of factors redcuing birth rates, including infertility, women's careers, etc., but there's still enough people having 3,4,5,+ kids to bring that average up.

I'm a big supporter of adoption instead of birth, mainly because there's so many kids without parents who face a lot more problems than if they did have parents. But I also agree with Stoaty - it isn't the sort of thing you should walk into without committment.

Me & the missus have two adopted kids and two adopted dogs. For me it was a similar philosophy behind both and I was never keen to do the biological pass-on-your-genes bit. There are other issues that birth kids don't have, but we got excellent preparation and support. So I'd reccomend people give it some thought if they're starting a family - and the adoption process should be streamlined to encourage younger parents to have the chance to select it as a first option.

Ok, this is a topic that has been covered before, and it's one that easily get heated, so take it easy ok?

+1

[Goob]

I will never have my own children because I believe the population needs to be going down.

I agree that the population needs to go down, but it must go down slowly, otherwise there could be large economic implications...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#The_.22four-two-one.22_problem

Yes falling pops could have big problems, but in the Western world getting close to 1 child per woman is a long way off. There's a lot of factors redcuing birth rates, including infertility, women's careers, etc., but there's still enough people having 3,4,5,+ kids to bring that average up.

Yeah, I know a women my age (26) with 8 kids. Also, there are those people on television with ~16 kids. The fact that there are people like her popping out a kid or 2 every year makes me know for sure that I do not want to have any children of my own.

Also, I don't think it would be a bad thing if the population was cut in half in one generation. It has happened before and worked out pretty well for the working class.

[etherspin]

the solution is clearly to create more celebrities thus giving more children from third world countries lush living arrangements.

I am someone who opted for the selfish option of having my own child.. its incredibly fulfilling and I am really aware of the good an adoption would do. I may do that later.. not sure. at least I want to make this little kiddo a lovely, kind , vegan person who will do good in the world.

[Catt Queen]

People who are at high risk of passing on a serious disease should not have their own children - someone I know through work had a baby because her health is such that it was "now or never" (not because she actually wanted one, her specialist actually told her to do it now or her health would degenerate too much to do it later). Her child has something like a 75% chance of inheriting the very painful degenerative disease that she has. Other children in the family have it and are suffering intensely. To me, that is just plain wrong. Bringing any living thing into the world knowing it will most likely live a life of pain and suffering is just wrong.

[xrodolfox]

I think that this question is framed TERRIBLY.

Either way a person answers it, the answer requires a frame of mind where having a child is about the individual or the couples or the group.

I think that there is no answer because the question is wrong, and that is the case because of the VALUES of the person asking, and the ASSUMPTIONS being made when asking.

For example on ASSUMPTIONS:
1) People choose to have children
2) Having more children affects the environment/world/ecology/economy/etc. poorly

I'm sure that are more, but those two popped off the top of my head. Those two assumptions are clearly from a set of capiotalist set of VALUES (that a "market" approach to curbing the ill effects of mass consumption is the solution), and a global north middle class point of view on birth control. I reject all those values as absolute.

I think a much less problematic question is:

How can we solve the problems associated with mass consumption?

That answer to that might occasionally be for some people to adopt rather than have more biological children, or to place restrictions on the availability of fertilization assistance for humans... but I don't know. It seems that instead of having couples/individuals decide the fate of the world on whether or not to have children is less productive that thinking about what we can DO together. That's not the question asked, but it is much more interesting and less problematic.

In the end, I think it matters very little if people have more or less children as individuals without larger policy changes or action. Adding more children to people who consume very little and put little strain on the world due to consumption really isn't a problem. Adding more children to communities that consume more and more could be a problem... but it doesn't address the real issue: the nature of those communities. So it is likely that a community in which there is a lot of consumption has a child born in it that fights back and changes the whole SYSTEM rather than just a HABIT.

I think that ultimately, the question is a bad question because it ignores that the real locus of change needs to be systemic to deal with systemic issues, not solely individual choice. Solidarity and community is the solution, not making each individual an island with their own market choice.

[offense74]

Yes, but no matter how little a person in a community consumes, if you don't control the population you will sooner or later have an overpopulation problem.
I would like politicians to encourage childlessness instead of the opposite as is now done.

[xrodolfox]

Yes, but no matter how little a person in a community consumes, if you don't control the population you will sooner or later have an overpopulation problem.

I believe you are factually and logically incorrect.

I would like politicians to encourage childlessness instead of the opposite as is now done.

This depends on whom the policy addresses. I am afraid of gov't involvement in eugenics, as similar sentiments have often resulted horribly, such as when the "overpopulation" of poor backs resulted in coerced sterilization projects that affected poor communities.

In general, the biggest thing that curbs having more children is female education. That is a policy I am 100% behind.
However, that won't always solve a consumption problem. That's mostly due to the Global North, and the worst consumers often have population decline.

Malthus's ideas were scare tactics that fed on fears of others, rather than on the real problem: US.