I try to be. Children would be exhausting to parent in the current era. Humanity’s future is gloom too.

  • @H4rdStyl3z@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago

    Those who would adopt morally would be compelled to adopt children from their own family first… who better to not let an orphan forget their parents than someone who also loved and knew those parents?

    And if there were no family, then friends of those parents for the same reason.

    I… agree with you? You’re making a strawman out of me in this argument. I never said I advocated for adopting from Africa before adopting from your own family or circle of friends. Heck, if I do decide to adopt in the future, that’s the route I’d try to take first. Not that it’s a big desire of mine, but that’s what I’d choose to do.

    • @DPUGT2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      You’re making a strawman out of me in this argument.

      We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.

      I apologize if this makes it seem I’m hostile to you.

      But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.

      And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.

      • @H4rdStyl3z@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.

        Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your argument.

        But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.

        And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.

        I somewhat agree, in the sense that, from a moral perspective, if you’re adopting just to satisfy a desire, without any good intention to help the child being adopted, you’re just as evil as if you’ve had a biological child for that same reason. That might be where you disagree with me though.

        I don’t think people in this thread are advocating for adoption from a strictly selfish point of view, they are merely acknowledging that, in the face of wanting a child to take care of, adopting a child who was neglected seems like a more morally sound choice than having a biological child, in those circumstances.

        • Torrid
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Absolutely. Quite honestly, adopting from another country had never crossed my mind, since I grew up with so many orphans. I was surprised that some people immediately jumped to that conclusion