Conception or Adoption?

[Dogma's Demise]

Right so let's say you're a happily married couple and you've decided to raise 1 or more children.

Now you can either have one of your own. (And let's assume for the sake of argument that you can conceive, fertility is not an issue.)

Or you can adopt from the endless stream of the ones who don't have a proper home, maybe even from some of the poorest parts of the world.

Which makes more sense? In fact, isn't it a bit reckless in this point in time to basically spawn new life when millions of children around the world live in utter poverty and on the brink of starvation? I've been trying to find some kind of rational justification for having children of your own in this social climate, but honestly I cannot.

Even the "Europeans have low birthrates" argument doesn't convince me because if you're really concerned about it, you can just adopt children from abroad and raise them in your own culture to be westernized Europeans. So neither western culture, nor the pension systems collapse. Doesn't matter where they're from.

 

[IBSpify]

Well the act of conception is a lot more fun than filling out paper work for adoption.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well the act of conception is a lot more fun than filling out paper work for adoption.

Saved.

 

[bluejatheist]

It is more logical to adopt and care for a human that is already here rather than making a whole new one. Most people aren't logical and are media-deluded into thinking that having their own kids is the peak goal for their life.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Genetic imperative.

 

[bluejatheist]

Genetic imperative.

My cloaca.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Because we are genetically driven to have children of our own -
but, here's how I feel on the subject:

I dated a single mother once. She was lovely, and her child was absolutely amazing...
But it didn't feel right. I had only felt this feeling once before - it was when my friend gave me his GBA to play his version of Pokemon Crystal on it. I couldn't help but feel empty.
Like that playing from the beginning of the Pokemon series with my own team and people until the end on JUST Red was so much better than all of this entire game.

So, that's the best metaphor for it.
It's like playing someone else's saved game. You'll never really feel right even if you finish it.

 

[bluejatheist]

Because we are genetically driven to have children of our own -
but, here's how I feel on the subject:

I dated a single mother once. She was lovely, and her child was absolutely amazing...
But it didn't feel right. I had only felt this feeling once before - it was when my friend gave me his GBA to play his version of Pokemon Crystal on it. I couldn't help but feel empty.
Like that playing from the beginning of the Pokemon series with my own team and people until the end on JUST Red was so much better than all of this entire game.

So, that's the best metaphor for it.
It's like playing someone else's saved game. You'll never really feel right even if you finish it.

Comparing the decision whether or not to take on the responsibility of giving a child the benefit of a father in their life to the feeling not being satisfied with a saved Pokemon game? Fuck off and come back when you grow up. I have no doubt this sentiment is shared by others here.

--

To follow up on my reply to AW, since it was brief, genetic diversity is not a significant factor, this is a choice to raise a child that already exists, as in, a new addition to the gene pool, that is already here. If there were no more children left for adoption then simply shift back to procreation of our own.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Well the act of conception is a lot more fun than filling out paper work for adoption.

Well, sure I understand that from a personal perspective, but from a global perspective, what they're essentially doing is burdening an already overburdened planet with a brand new person, ignoring the suffering of the child they could have saved just because it's "not their blood", all to get some kind of short term personal gratification (or a false sense of convenience because really, child-bearing can't possibly be easier than paper work) which at the end of the day is superficial.

It is more logical to adopt and care for a human that is already here rather than making a whole new one. Most people aren't logical and are media-deluded into thinking that having their own kids is the peak goal for their life.

I can sum that up in three words:

The Child Delusion

I hope I haven't offended anyone, don't get me wrong, people should be free to live their lives as they want... so I fully acknowledge from a practical point of view it's never going to happen...

...but you know it doesn't make sense when taken at face value.

 

[Laurens]

It is more logical to adopt and care for a human that is already here rather than making a whole new one. Most people aren't logical and are media-deluded into thinking that having their own kids is the peak goal for their life.

Media deluded?

I'd say biologically programmed...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Comparing the decision whether or not to take on the responsibility of giving a child the benefit of a father in their life to the feeling not being satisfied with a saved Pokemon game? Fuck off and come back when you grow up. I have no doubt this sentiment is shared by others here.

It was a reference to an emotional and mental standpoint of feeling like you've done something full and well. I would never feel the satisfaction of helping this child grow up from scratch - nor teach him to walk. Or Play Baseball.
More directly it's a biological program designed in such a manner. Reproduction of one's own lineage is literally biologically programmed into your very genetic fabric. It's on the list of taking a piss, keeping your heart beating, and reminding yourself that breathing is a primary method of surviving the next 5-8 minutes.

That's just Biology.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I'd say biologically programmed...

Not sure about women, but I think men are programmed to have sex, more than they are to have children.

 

[Laurens]

I'd say biologically programmed...

Not sure about women, but I think men are programmed to have sex, more than they are to have children.

Yes, but the man's urge to spread his seed everywhere, combined with the woman's instinct to raise children makes it difficult for us to see the advantages of adoption...

 

[Frenger]

In answer to the op.

I know the right thing to do is to adopt and at the moment that is what I would do, however when the time comes I will probably bottle it. Like has been said, we want our own, we are programmed to want our own and I will probably have my own, although I hope I can overcome that silly old natural urge.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

My attitude toward children is the same as my attitude toward pets. If you can't afford to raise one, don't have one, and if you can afford to raise one it's best to adopt.

 

[Laurens]

Its worth bearing in mind though that its not always as simple a decision as; when I want children, I shall adopt...

In many instances children just tend to happen...

 

[Frenger]

Its worth bearing in mind though that its not always as simple a decision as; when I want children, I shall adopt...

In many instances children just tend to happen...

Someone's not playing safe

 

[Laurens]

Its worth bearing in mind though that its not always as simple a decision as; when I want children, I shall adopt...

In many instances children just tend to happen...

Someone's not playing safe

Well I wasn't talking about myself personally, but I know of several people who now have kids that they did not plan for...

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Well I wasn't talking about myself personally, but I know of several people who now have kids that they did not plan for...

Yeah, I know that situation... I've got a few relatives who've had the same thing happen to them. Normally I wouldn't be mad, but for god's sake, they can barely afford to sustain themselves.

 

[Dean]

Upon reading some of the replies (or at least skimming the page)--I decided I'd wait a little while to reply, so as to allow the testosterone and bravado to subside . . . I think it's worth remembering that "What are we to do as humans, as prescribed by our biological instincts?", and "What makes logical and ethical sense?", are two completely separate questions, with the potential for notably disparate answers, which I can probably illuminate using a hypothetical scenario. E.g., if we are to use the terms '(logically) sensible" and "instinctual" interchangeably, then it would also make sense to rape and murder. Don't think I'm appealing to emotion here. But this is just the most obvious example I can find. It seems fairly clear that actions such as murder and rape are in human-"nature", but that doesn't mean it makes ethical/logical sense. And vice versa. Etc. "Biologically programmed" is in itself a tricky term to use, as one has to distinguish between those notions that are genuinely biological, and those which are instilled culturally, or doctrinally. And people still argue over which is which . . . now I'll attempt to explain some of my thoughts on the specific points thus:

["¦] Which makes more sense? In fact, isn't it a bit reckless in this point in time to basically spawn new life when millions of children around the world live in utter poverty and on the brink of starvation? I've been trying to find some kind of rational justification for having children of your own in this social climate, but honestly I cannot. ["¦]

Then we are in agreement. It is , in purely logical terms , not merely unnecessary, given the children that already exist; but also somewhat costly in and of itself, however indirectly. I.e. "choosing to do X (have one's own children) will mean that Y (some kid) that may have to wait longer to attain Z (a home),than s/he would have done otherwise". And simply saying that someone else will do it is utterly redundant, because if everyone held this form of argument to be valid, then they never would, or could. One also has to take into account the conditions in which the child him/herself will be born into, and whether or not it will be worth it for them. So far as I can tell, if one feels the need to have children for purely altruistic reasons, as one can find expressed in sentiments such as "I just want someone to take care of", then adopting a child makes more sense, logically, and ethically.

["¦] Even the "Europeans have low birthrates" argument doesn't convince me because if you're really concerned about it, you can just adopt children from abroad and raise them in your own culture to be westernized Europeans. So neither western culture, nor the pension systems collapse. Doesn't matter where they're from.

Indeed. And quite honestly, who gives a flying eff about birth rates? It's not like it's going to harm anyone to make the decision to disallow them from coming into existence. Besides which, Europe's burgeoning population of 740 million people now accounts for over 10% of the already grotesquely overpopulated planet Earth. There is neither the energy nor the resources on Earth to sustain an exponentially expanding population of humans indefinitely. People day constantly, so Europe's "dropping birth rate" is but a slight diminution of an already pervasive trend. E.g. it may mean that the rate of death creeps a tad closer to the birth-rate. The real question is: who cares? Because I don't.

Well the act of conception is a lot more fun than filling out paper work for adoption.

Saved.

What the hell does this have to do with , to quote the words of the opening poster , "sense"? The urge for one to sexually reproduce is a biological, instinctual one. But as I said, if we're going to conflate that with "sense" (which I take to mean logical sense); then you will have to defend that position in every other scenario thus conceived (such as the ones I mentioned). And besides which, conception , i.e. fertilization , is NOT the "fun" part of it, I don't think. You are equivocating the term sexual-intercourse with other terms. Conception is simply the process of gamete-fusion to create a new living organism, though in this case we are focusing on human life. However, this is not necessarily connected to intercourse, which is separate from this altogether. Theoretically, one does not need intercourse to fuse gametes, and likewise, one does not need to fertilize an ovum to enjoy sex. Thus, the point is utterly moot, and once again, this has no connection whatsoever to logic.

I won't bother with Arthur's comment, as it suffers from the same fallacy. Has anybody read the word "sense" in the way that I have? Apparently not. And anyway, it's not "imperative" in any sense. Adopting children (people detached from one's own family per se), would actually increase genetic diversity, be it indirectly.

Because we are genetically driven to have children of our own - ["¦]

Perhaps you were. Apparently,
I wasn't.

["¦] I dated a single mother once. ["¦] her child was absolutely amazing...
But it didn't feel right. I had only felt this feeling once before - it was when my friend gave me his GBA to play his version of Pokemon Crystal on it. I couldn't help but feel empty.
Like that playing from the beginning of the Pokemon series with my own team and people until the end on JUST Red was so much better than all of this entire game.

["¦]
It's like playing someone else's saved game. You'll never really feel right even if you finish it.

WTF?! You witlessly go from speaking about the implications of giving a child a father, and you personal dissatisfaction with the saving of a game of Pokémon? Analogically or not, it's downright absurd. I'm bored and fed up with having to deal with poorly constructed arguments, and one-dimensional thinking. Something to contemplate: as Schopenhauer observed: "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" And thus it makes every bit of logical sense to allow for those that do exist to receive families. Mine or your personal indignations aside.

It is more logical to adopt and care for a human that is already here rather than making a whole new one. Most people aren't logical and are media-deluded into thinking that having their own kids is the peak goal for their life.

Media deluded?

I'd say biologically programmed...

Well, I suppose you could say that it's evolutionarily imperative, but we humans have separated from the so called "Darwinian way of life" for a very long time, and in more ways than one. I reject the notion that having children has anything to do with any meaning or goal in life, and once again, you're assuming that this is connected to what makes any sense. It really isn't. To put a point to it: It's about the memes, not about the genes. Whether or not you have a genetic legacy, does not stop you from having a legacy. I would quite like to live my life out well, and I'd like to think that I had contributed something to the civilization that has overall given me a pretty good life, and that my knowledge (legacy, IMO) will be passed on for at least some time after my death. The biological mechanism you describe might have had some relevance at a time when human populations dwindled (and that has happened), and we lived out the Darwinian dog-eat-dog imperative.

That was the last of its usefulness.

["¦] Not sure about women, but I think men are programmed to have sex, more than they are to have children.

Indeed. One could point to evolutionary reasons for this, e.g. a man who has sex with many women will have more children. The same is not true of women. But don't be so sure. Work done by the likes of Robin Baker has highlighted the fact that women may be "designed" (in a hereditary manner of speaking) to be physically interested in multiple partners, and it may indeed be culture influence in human societies that stops women from engaging in these kinds of behaviours.
Lol, it would appear that this is going to become a (significantly) longer post than I thought.

["¦] makes it difficult for us to see the advantages of adoption

I sometimes feel that your ellipses mask considerable need for explanation, and elaboration. I.e. it's pretty easy for me to see the benefits of child adoption, and the (potentially) negative consequences of the alternative. But then, my way of viewing the world has been noted to be quite different to that of most people, so I'll be tentatively inclined to concur. Now then . . .

My attitude toward children is the same as my attitude toward pets. If you can't afford to raise one, don't have one, and if you can afford to raise one it's best to adopt.

Its worth bearing in mind though that its not always as simple a decision as; when I want children, I shall adopt...

In many instances children just tend to happen...

Yes, and it's also worth bearing in mind that those pregnancies that are not planned or pre-ordained are often those that create children who will then need to be adopted. It becomes a vicious cycle, of sorts. Perhaps it is the case that a lack of willingness to have children at all would eliminate this problem (in the long run). Though this is indeed somewhat impractical. Heh . . .