Is it normal to think we should adopt before starting new life?

72% Normal
10 Comments

There are so many kids who desperately need homes and love and security, and yet still so very many of us feel a "need" to reproduce. It's not as if our species were endangered, either. And our population growth, even with advances in sustainability, is among the greatest threats to the ecosystem--including us humans ourselves.

And there are people who'll have four, five, six, seven... kids. I won't ask "why?" because I know it's complex, even visceral. But, really. It's time to start controlling human reproduction, 'cause it's too easy and too frequent. And all the while kids are abandoned because no one happens to want them.

Voting Results
72% Normal
Based on 25 votes (18 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 10 )
  • Ellenna
    7 years ago

    Adoption can be a good thing FOR THE CHILD or it can be a disaster: I'm in favour of it if it's done respectfully and with the rights of THE CHILD being paramount, then the rights of the relinquishing mother/parents and then the adoptive parents.

    I've been hearing some figures recently that every day in Australia 400 people die and 800 babies are born: if that's correct I'm glad I won't be around when it's standing room only.

    The best way to prevent overpopulation going even further is to make contraception and abortion freely available and to educate women, because the higher education women have the less kids they give birth to.

    Tell the pope, someone, please ...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Fugazi,
    7 years ago

    Yes and i think ivf should be illegal when there are so many wanes with no home or parents. If someone wants a kid so badly it shouldnt matter if its their own

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • AB1234
      7 years ago

      Love it!!!!! Couldn't agree more. You see these polished ads for these super-expensive medical services pushing IVF, and they're advocating their services as "vital," because not being able to conceive, so they argue, can constitute a medical calamity. How about the ecological calamity of explosive human population growth as more and more of us consume like there's no tomorrow?

      Yes, make IVF a crime. You want a kid so badly, freakin' adopt.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Tealights
    7 years ago

    It's not hard to understand. Humans surpassed the natural population control (lack of shelter, diseases, animal attacks, starvation, etc). However, we still have the urges to mate and reproduce, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's what animals do.

    The problem is, we're reproducing irresponsibly in a modern world. In my opinion, if we can teach sex education in schools, get everyone thinking about safe sex and birth control sooner (rather than 1 baby too late), then it could help a lot. Along with that, birth control should be free; especially the IUD for those who can't remember to a take pill everyday.

    If we truly put effort into these ideas and do them efficiently, there would be less children for adoption, less abortions, and fewer broken/abusive families that started with teenage/young adult parents who weren't anywhere near ready to raise a child.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • AB1234
      7 years ago

      It IS hard to understand, because even among the very well educated and financially solvent who're aware of the costs of trillions of humans to the ecosystem and our own cultures, there is an irrational drive to have one's own. There are many urges we have that we check on rational inspection. Having an urge doesn't excuse one from acting responsibly, and that includes the urge to reproduce.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Tealights
        7 years ago

        The problem isn't that people aren't adopting enough. As wonderful as adoption is, adopting more is only a temporary solution to a much bigger issue.

        Humans are animals. There's no way that everyone will just go, "We should adopt another person's child before making our own." Though ideal, it's extremely unrealistic, and goes against our animal instincts.

        In my opinion, which you would probably disagree with, I believe we should try to curb the problem at the source, one country at a time. The source being irresponsibly reproducing. Adopting may be nice for a child in the situation, but what about the next generation of children flooding in after some irresponsible teens or adults felt it would more humane to throw their unwanted child in the system, rather than raise them? Though in some situations it is the best choice, but when it comes to a lot of other people out there, it shouldn't have came to that to begin with if they just knew to use some sort of birth control.

        Sadly, the idea of revamping the education system, firing the bullshit teachers and hiring quality educators; or actually teaching sex education that isn't some gym teacher handing out ditto sheets about the reproductive system (my experience) or some other crap, would take so much money and time that the government isn't willing to budge on just yet.

        At the end of the day, both our ideas to help the world, our country, or maybe just our local community is a bit far-fetched.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • AB1234
          7 years ago

          Yes, I agree humans are animals, and there is a strong urge to reproduce. Biologists and, more recently, genetic and cognitive scientists, find, for example, that racism is not merely a "moral flaw," of humanity, but rather an evolutionarily entrenched survival tool that, today, is counterproductive. That something is natural doesn't argue that it ought to be excused or tolerated. Quite the contrary, when the natural behavior threatens the survival of others. And wish-(or accident)-motivated reproduction certainly threatens the survival of very many of the extant species on earth--humans among them. It is the role of sage policy to address otherwise harmful, though natural, human behavior. We've done it before (curbing discrimination, the predilection for physical violence and sexual aggression...). And I am guessing that as the Developing World begins to consume at the rate the West does, the resulting survival threat will motivate humans, especially our governments, to alter radically our reproductive choices.

          I don't think these propositions conflict. Drastically limit human reproduction. Just wanting to reproduce (or simply enjoying sex) isn't a sufficient justification for reproduction. Governments have a responsibility to limit just how free their millions of citizens are, when those freedoms impact others' survival. And provide incentives to responsible families to adopt, so kids who have no one else can be integrated into healthy families.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
    • 8=====D~~~~~
      7 years ago

      Very insightful answer. And humans have passed the natural population controls that you mentioned to some degree.

      But catastrophic natural disasters we will likely never surpass, so one way or another nature will do what it has to.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Terence_the_viking
    7 years ago

    People who don't want kids should not be fucking like there is no tomorrow.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • AB1234
      7 years ago

      I like that sentiment, but--and this is a serious question--don't people fuck like there's no tomorrow because it feels good? I think people will keep fucking regardless the consequences (STDs, unwanted pregnancies...) so long as sex is enjoyable and humanity remains devoted to short-term gratification.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0