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

[aspara-gus]

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 children to poor overpopulated areas is a small problem concerning consumption, but a huge problem concerning waste management, spread of diseases, civil unrest, and not to mention animal abuse.

[xrodolfox]

Sure, those areas that have too many people to sustain them have many problems, including "waste management, spread of diseases, civil unrest, and not to mention animal abuse."

But that's MORE the case in places that have a few rich people. A Millionaire (not even a billionaire) in the UK consumes well over 1,000 times what the AVERAGE person (not even the poor) in Sub-sahara Africa. So that millionaire can adopt a bus-load of kids, but to make it even with someone from sub-sahara african they would have to adopt nearly 900 kids from your average family. A real solution would be to get rid of the rich, since globally, 10% of the world population consumes at least 80% of the resources, INCLUDING animal abuse/destruction, creating of disease. Just because they can afford a shower doesn't mean that they aren't dirty with global destruction (including the suffering of other human and non-human animals).

In some cases, if initiated from the communities themselves, the real issue *is* overpopulation... but in most, stability, distribution, and the basics of unfair economics is what causes starvation/etc. It is also not the number of people, but most often culture and capitalism that fuel the destruction of animals for food/entertainment and encroachment and destruction of wild animals and habitat. In those cases, increasing female education is key (reduces birth rates while also giving a path towards democracy and political stability), but so is no longer being colonialists and market exploitationists in the Global South.

I just spent some time reading the whole white-supremacists websites whose main fear is that brown people are reproducing too quickly. Frankly, I know that such an argument is different than the one made by well-meaning liberals who want to curb population growth in poor communities in the Global South and for poor people in their own countries... at least, what I argue is the same, even if their arguments are remarkably similar. "Dirty <insert unsavory people here> that spread disease and have no real culture to protect <insert value>..."

Sure, we need to curb population growth... but my alarm is that we are making more and more rich people with less and less democracy and education. It is quite easy for a poor person to curb birthing more children with an education and basic fair economic distribution, but that is nearly impossible when rich people exist to the point of severe lack of justice in the economy.

So sure, I'll give you that point. Adding 1,000,000 more poor people would put a lot of strain on planer earth and animals... at about the same rate as one billionaire. Cutting back on those poor people will help put less strain on planet earth, other humans, and other animals. Is this the part where you'd say economic justice is only a small part of the equation, or not the focus? Is this the part where it's "selfish" for poor people to have kids and where we don't talk about economic inequality and it's effects on the planet? (And for that matter, probably make the birth rates rise by decreasing stability and increasing the unfair distribution of education.)

Instead of the question: "Is it selfish to have your own children" I'd rather ask "Is it ethical to have an economy where such economic injustice can exist?"... 'cause frankly, even if you are rich you can't change things by just giving away your money... what we need is deeper than anther market solution (like giving away money) and it's not just folks on the internet in rich countries that have all the answers. IMO it's not the rich that are the problem, but the system that allows such incredibly injustice to be the ideal.

[Fallen_Horse]

Sure, those areas that have too many people to sustain them have many problems, including "waste management, spread of diseases, civil unrest, and not to mention animal abuse."

But that's MORE the case in places that have a few rich people. A Millionaire (not even a billionaire) in the UK consumes well over 1,000 times what the AVERAGE person (not even the poor) in Sub-sahara Africa. So that millionaire can adopt a bus-load of kids, but to make it even with someone from sub-sahara african they would have to adopt nearly 900 kids from your average family. A real solution would be to get rid of the rich, since globally, 10% of the world population consumes at least 80% of the resources, INCLUDING animal abuse/destruction, creating of disease. Just because they can afford a shower doesn't mean that they aren't dirty with global destruction (including the suffering of other human and non-human animals).

In some cases, if initiated from the communities themselves, the real issue *is* overpopulation... but in most, stability, distribution, and the basics of unfair economics is what causes starvation/etc. It is also not the number of people, but most often culture and capitalism that fuel the destruction of animals for food/entertainment and encroachment and destruction of wild animals and habitat. In those cases, increasing female education is key (reduces birth rates while also giving a path towards democracy and political stability), but so is no longer being colonialists and market exploitationists in the Global South.

I just spent some time reading the whole white-supremacists websites whose main fear is that brown people are reproducing too quickly. Frankly, I know that such an argument is different than the one made by well-meaning liberals who want to curb population growth in poor communities in the Global South and for poor people in their own countries... at least, what I argue is the same, even if their arguments are remarkably similar. "Dirty <insert unsavory people here> that spread disease and have no real culture to protect <insert value>..."

Sure, we need to curb population growth... but my alarm is that we are making more and more rich people with less and less democracy and education. It is quite easy for a poor person to curb birthing more children with an education and basic fair economic distribution, but that is nearly impossible when rich people exist to the point of severe lack of justice in the economy.

So sure, I'll give you that point. Adding 1,000,000 more poor people would put a lot of strain on planer earth and animals... at about the same rate as one billionaire. Cutting back on those poor people will help put less strain on planet earth, other humans, and other animals. Is this the part where you'd say economic justice is only a small part of the equation, or not the focus? Is this the part where it's "selfish" for poor people to have kids and where we don't talk about economic inequality and it's effects on the planet? (And for that matter, probably make the birth rates rise by decreasing stability and increasing the unfair distribution of education.)

Instead of the question: "Is it selfish to have your own children" I'd rather ask "Is it ethical to have an economy where such economic injustice can exist?"... 'cause frankly, even if you are rich you can't change things by just giving away your money... what we need is deeper than anther market solution (like giving away money) and it's not just folks on the internet in rich countries that have all the answers. IMO it's not the rich that are the problem, but the system that allows such incredibly injustice to be the ideal.

Agreed

[aspara-gus]

In some cases, if initiated from the communities themselves, the real issue *is* overpopulation... but in most, stability, distribution, and the basics of unfair economics is what causes starvation/etc. It is also not the number of people, but most often culture and capitalism that fuel the destruction of animals for food/entertainment and encroachment and destruction of wild animals and habitat.
Instead of the question: "Is it selfish to have your own children" I'd rather ask "Is it ethical to have an economy where such economic injustice can exist?"... 'cause frankly, even if you are rich you can't change things by just giving away your money... what we need is deeper than anther market solution (like giving away money) and it's not just folks on the internet in rich countries that have all the answers. IMO it's not the rich that are the problem, but the system that allows such incredibly injustice to be the ideal.

What I wanted to know were the opinions about the morality of adoption vs. having your own biological child and the only thing I knew about those who were addressed this question were that they were probably vegan and had access to a pc and internet. This target group is obviously living in areas of high consumption, which is why i believe the question is relevant. Your suggested question "Is it ethical to have an economy where such economic injustice can exist?" is not only opinionated in itself but has little to do with the original topic.

Now that we have covered the third world issue so thoroughly, how can it possibly be better for the world when someone in the first world chooses to have their own child if they have the option of adopting a poor child from an overpopulated area? To simplify the issue, let's assume that the couple have decided that having no child at all is not an option.

I don't think the reasons why these countries became overpopulated in the first place is at all relevant to this question.

[xrodolfox]

I think an market approach (like adopting a kid from a poor country to a rich one) doesn't change much in terms of the economy, or "overpopulation", or global carrying capacity. I think that "selfishness" has nothing do with either having a kid biologically or adopting.

We hope to adopt an older kid or two when we are more financially secure, but I have no romanticization that adopting is ethically better or spectacularly selfless. Raising kids well is always selfless. Raising kids without homes is individually awesome, but it won't change the structure of injustice or inequality btw poor and rich.

People that adopt (or don't) aren't saints or devils. People that don't have children aren't doing the rest of us a favor or a loss. That whole end of things actually believes that the market will solve problems. It isn't selfish or selfless. Structuring the question like that is what I take issue with.

I think that putting the word "selfish" makes for a discussion in which it is ripe to demonize and treat others like shit: whether it is having children biologically, or adopting, or being childless. I hear a bunch of people with biological children talk about how it is "selfish" to be childless. That is fucked up. I hear a bunch of childless people talk about how having children in your life is selfish. That is also fucked up. I hear folks put adopting on a pedestal, or folks put biological children on a pedestal, and that's all fucked up. None of those saves the world. None of those is spectacularly selfish or selfless unless you make it that way. Children are not commodities like bicycles or homes or furniture. Having a huge home *might* be selfish, but it might not be. Adopting or having children biologically isn't the same.

Last, in the given constraints you gave, you presented a perfect test case.

That doesn't exist at all in the Real World. Most children that are born in the world are not planned. Only rich people have that "planning" available. Fuck, we didn't plan at all and in a way, after unintentional conception, we had no choice but to go through with pregnancy. I think that "selfishness" plays only once you have a choice. Is it "selfish" for a couple or individual who give up their kid for adoption or is it selfish for the person that adopts? That's why this whole "selfish" thing smacks of trying to be "holier than thou" and to me smacks of undeserved self-righteousness.

Is my wife's biological mother selfish when she gave my wife up for adoption? Were my in-laws selfish when they took a little girl in to raise her or were they selfish?

You've got so many problems with your framework. Asking a question framed to make you feel better isn't really an honest question, eh?

[aspara-gus]

xrodolfox. I can tell by your writing skills that you are probably an intelligent person. This is why I find your line of reasoning and attempts of justification even more astounding.

1. You attempt to invalidate a simple question by posting comments you must certainly know are untrue, such as writing that the act of couples choosing to have their own kids "doesn't exist at all in the Real World." If you are going to write that I took this quote out of context, please let us know exactly what "doesn't exist at all in the Real World."?

2. You attempt to confuse a simple issue by introducing issues that are barely even marginally related to the issue at hand. "Is it ethical to have an economy where such economic injustice can exist?" WTF????

3. You criticize those who do think that the choice of having your own child rather than adopting is selfish by writing "holier than thou" and to me smacks of undeserved self-righteousness". I often hear people say that they know animals suffer because of their eating habits but they do it anyway, because it "tastes so damn good." Similarly, I think abortion is selfish since the convenience of the parent(s) come before the rights and potential happiness of the unborn child. I think the world would be a better place if more people thought like I, and I greatly admire people who do more about it than I do. Does this make me "holier than thou?"

In your second to last sentence you write: Is my wife's biological mother selfish when she gave my wife up for adoption? Were my in-laws selfish when they took a little girl in to raise her or were they selfish? I have no idea how these questions fit in to your post or support anything else you have written but the answers are "probably not" and "definitely not."

[beforewisdom]

No disrespect to anyone, really, but I have seen this debate umpteen times on the internet and at least a few times on this board.

There are people who look at the issue objectively, beyond their own desires and situations.

However, most people will have their opinion fall in line with their lifestyle.

People with kids, large families ( more than 2 kids ), or who know they want kids will argue about if a problem exists at all or otherwise try to push the issue aside.

People who don't want kids will be quicker to pick up on the topic and unfortunately, get holier than thou.

[Twoism]

Similarly, I think adoption is selfish since the convenience of the parent(s) come before the rights and potential happiness of the unborn child.

How can something which doesn't exist have rights? And if an adopted child is brought up in a genuinely loving home with far more opportunities than they would otherwise likely have, then surely the fact that a person adopted for their own convenience or gratification is completely irrelevent?


Part of me would love to have my "own" children, but I can't help but feel that my genes are completely irrelevent to the human species when so many of us exist. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of human beings are no longer governed by the laws of survival which our ancestors were exposed to - we are beyond that. Of course evolution is a continuous process, but as a species we can nullify many of the factors which influence human survival.

To me, doing your best to bring up a child to be a "good person" (vague I know, but simply a person with a positive effect on humanity) is much more important than passing on my genes. So I would definitely consider adoption later in my life. However, when it comes to planning a family I think it will be much much easier for me to produce my own children rather than adopt (in the UK at least). But that's another discussion I guess...

[Alan Dove]

Yes, yes it is selfish, in that having a child is to satisfy completely your own needs and desires. I wouldn't judge anyone who had a child because the forces of nature often cloud clear judgement. It's like eating meat. Your brain kicks into survival nature mode and completely dismisses any emotional attachment you may have towards animal to suit your dietary 'needs'.

[aspara-gus]

Similarly, I think adoption is selfish since the convenience of the parent(s) come before the rights and potential happiness of the unborn child.

How can something which doesn't exist have rights? .

Sorry, I meant abortion and not adoption. I have now corrected.

[xJimx]

I wouldn't judge anyone who had a child because the forces of nature often cloud clear judgement.

On behalf of the emotionally vulnerable members of this forum I'd like to thank you warmly for your compassion & understanding.

[ElaineV]

I hate how these discussions become about population and not about needy children. If anyone wants to claim that having biological children instead of adopting is selfish (in a bad way) then let's make it about all the children who need homes NOW rather than about the potential for environmental devastation as a result of population growth. C'mon, get your priorities in order!

[Alistar]

Yes, yes it is selfish, in that having a child is to satisfy completely your own needs and desires.

I wonder what you, as that child of 2 parents, thinks about that "selfishness" of them having you in the 1st place?

[loveliberate]

As the "child of two parents", a parent to 3 wonderful vegan kids (+ a vasectomy now) who thinks everyone benefits from having kids (people of all ages really) in our lives & someone who agrees with Rodolfo nearly point for point: Please do not bring any more humans into this world until all the kids who are already here have loving homes with supportive communities AND we get our social/enviromental & economic problems far better taken care of worldwide!

Adoption is not the only alternative and isn't even an option for many folks but almost all of us can easily find parents & kids who'd love to have someone else to help out & be involved!

[beforewisdom]

7 Billionth child born 2011 October 31
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5314.story