Conception or Adoption?

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

@Dean,
1) It's very well and good that you didn't grasp that it was for a conveyance of the emotion of incompleteness and emptiness. To me, neither of those options feel "right" - I would be 100% incapable of taking in a child and raising it as my own in that particular circumstance. Call me crazy, but I don't have plans to have any children until I'm in my late 20s, early 30s when I'm financially stable and have done quite enough of the day-by-day living to last me the rest of my life.
To do anything otherwise would be irrational and unreasonable.

2) Kurt Vonnegut said it better-
Life is no way to treat an animal.

However, your proposal of reasoning is downright absurd in any case. If everyone were to do the rational thing, then the population would hit a negative growth of more people dying than being born. Any idiot who sees this as a positive would have not taken into account as the population gets older that less people would become fertile and lead to a decline in births once everyone had done the rational thing.

Also, I'm 110% sure that the trials and tribulations of my life and my interest in humanity, though some horrific and terrible the likes you could only watch in a Hollywood film about war in the Middle-East, are all contrasted by the fact that it was all to contrast my life in the most positive of aspects.
I'm alive, and I can do so much to help this world.
You insinuate that life should not be born due to events that phase the world in passing like a shadow. Someone who would insist upon such a thing would probably forget that there's light in the world - and when the sun shines out the next day it will seem to be just as bright and more clear than the day before.
There's still good in the world, and in life. Any other insinuation is unrealistic drivel.

 

[bluejatheist]

@Dean,
1) It's very well and good that you didn't grasp that it was for a conveyance of the emotion of incompleteness and emptiness. To me, neither of those options feel "right" - I would be 100% incapable of taking in a child and raising it as my own in that particular circumstance. Call me crazy, but I don't have plans to have any children until I'm in my late 20s, early 30s when I'm financially stable and have done quite enough of the day-by-day living to last me the rest of my life.
To do anything otherwise would be irrational and unreasonable.

2) Kurt Vonnegut said it better-
Life is no way to treat an animal.

However, your proposal of reasoning is downright absurd in any case. If everyone were to do the rational thing, then the population would hit a negative growth of more people dying than being born. Any idiot who sees this as a positive would have not taken into account as the population gets older that less people would become fertile and lead to a decline in births once everyone had done the rational thing.

Also, I'm 110% sure that the trials and tribulations of my life and my interest in humanity, though some horrific and terrible the likes you could only watch in a Hollywood film about war in the Middle-East, are all contrasted by the fact that it was all to contrast my life in the most positive of aspects.
I'm alive, and I can do so much to help this world.
You insinuate that life should not be born due to events that phase the world in passing like a shadow. Someone who would insist upon such a thing would probably forget that there's light in the world - and when the sun shines out the next day it will seem to be just as bright and more clear than the day before.
There's still good in the world, and in life. Any other insinuation is unrealistic drivel.

The drama class is down the street, sweetheart, maybe emotional bullshit will get you somewhere there. Better yet you just stick to your life mission of helping the world, Spirits forbid I or anyone else stop you from fucking 6 women per vacation, posting caption memes and referencing your experiences with Pokemon games when discussing matters of giving children a home, because it sure is making a difference. This thread is about discussing the logic of adoption, not about what passage of Hytegia's pathos-driven memoir we meek few are blessed to be given the honor of reading today. Now then, do you plan on actually rebutting Dean's clear, organized points which are based on his assessment of the objective logic of this topic, or are you going to continue making a mess with your bleeding heart?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Oh, you were finished? Well allow me to retort.
If you're going to use irrelevant personal attacks as references instead of making a point, you should at the very least sling them with a whip of whit and humor.

The Topic is not "WE SHOULD ALL ADOPT DON'T YOU AGREE?!"
The OP is inquiring why people would have children when there are many others whom do not have a home already or that live in Social Services.

The answer is, with 100% legitimacy, the reason people don't adopt is because of a natural biological drive that has kept life moving for 3.8 billion years. That's the reason that people don't adopt - plain and simple.

Is it right? Reasonable?
No. But that's why it happens.

Then I gave a perfectly side-by-side comparison of attachment and a feeling of emptiness and incompleteness as opposed to playing something through start-to-finish to contrast the biological withdraw that I, personally felt when presented with the option of having a child not my own.
The mere fact that when one was presented with the option and an internal drive of incompleteness and an emptiness is to further accentuate the fact that my biological drive is doing it's fucking job, thus contributing to the initial statement right above the story - which you so happily ignored.

The actual fact-value of my statement is the same as everyone else here - Laurens', devilsadvocate, IBSpiffy, and so on.

In the second post, I was moreso directly addressing the secondary statement while defending my initial one - that the shitty ones will always contrast the better ones. And I have seen some pretty shitty and horrific things which I can't go into detail about, but it will all go to contrast with the fact that I'm still alive, and has driven for me to help underprivledged people in many many ways.
Oh, that's right - you skimmed over that part.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

The drama class is down the street, sweetheart, maybe emotional bullshit will get you somewhere there. Better yet you just stick to your life mission of helping the world, Spirits forbid I or anyone else stop you from fucking 6 women per vacation, posting caption memes and referencing your experiences with Pokemon games when discussing matters of giving children a home, because it sure is making a difference. This thread is about discussing the logic of adoption, not about what passage of Hytegia's pathos-driven memoir we meek few are blessed to be given the honor of reading today. Now then, do you plan on actually rebutting Dean's clear, organized points which are based on his assessment of the objective logic of this topic, or are you going to continue making a mess with your bleeding heart?

I totally agree. How exactly does Hytegia plan on making any valid assertions if he keeps on with these emotion-driven responses with a bit of an actual point?


OH WAIT!
This isn't a formal debate, it's a topic on a discussion forum.
Nevermind, carry on.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Dean and blue, is it really that surprising to you that many people depend as much or more on emotion as logic to make decisions? Or that bringing a child into your life is a heavily emotional question?

Also, the distinction between having sex and having children is an incredibly recent one and meaningless from the standpoint of evolution and therefore the emotions that evolution has written into our nature. These emotions state that if we're raising a child we want it to contain our own genetics. There's several very obvious reasons for this from an evolutionary standpoint.