Having biological children is unethical?

[scelero]

Those are national problems, I'm speaking of world problems.

We're definitely not the only country or nation for that matter that's on the decline.

You're talking about the need to have sex to get a kid versus going through tons of paperwork and years of waiting. Yeah, sex is way better then filing tons of paperwork any day and 9 months is definitely quicker.

Hell I bet you would rather have sex again if the first time didn't take. How would you feel if the paperwork you filed didn't work (got lost), would you go back and redo all the paper work. I don't think so.

[diddle]

We're definitely not the only country or nation for that matter that's on the decline.

You're talking about the need to have sex to get a kid versus going through tons of paperwork and years of waiting. Yeah, sex is way better and 9 months is definitely quicker.

Are you telling me that the world's population has been decreasing very year? By national I meant it is only true in certain nations. Reading it I could see how it could be interpreted as referring to a specific country.

[shise]

My opinion goes as follows:

We are way too many humans on this planet and we should lower the number a bit.

How?
Adopting children and not allowing certain persons to reproduce for X time (this is not as bad as it sounds as we re talking about making them wait a few months, not even a year). That would be time enough for some people to adopt and for the number of humans to be reduced.

Now, I'm conscious about how freak that sounds :P, but I honestly believe that we are way too many humans on the planet and this is a good way to control it without the killin' stuff...

[scelero]

Are you telling me that the world's population has been decreasing very year? By national I meant it is only true in certain nations. Reading it I could see how it could be interpreted as referring to a specific country.

I believe the term used for what I'm talking about is called demographic decline. Look up stuff about how Europe is doing with this.

[Ragedaug]

"unethical" was by far and away too critical, but at this point the thread has developed enough I feel like it would be a disservice to change it for people just recently checking in.

I believe it's a disservice to continue to use the word "unethical" even though it has been overstated how wrong that word was. Fix it and steer the philosophical conversation in the right direction.

Until you do, you are going to continue to get responses of people who are confounded that you could even think there was a possibility that having your own children is unethical.

[Torgent]

Diddle just wants us to worship him for his nobility for adopting children. All of us who make our babies because we want to create life with the person we love are just savages ruining the world. How barbaric to want to continue your biological family.

[OneSent]

Diddle just wants us to worship him for his nobility for adopting children. All of us who make our babies because we want to create life with the person we love are just savages ruining the world. How barbaric to want to continue your biological family.

I know, right? How dare us.

Obviously, we should just screw the idea of having a family of our own and start raising a couple of kids who were born to an irresponsible mother. Because eventually, those women will stop being irresponsible, and by adopting all of their illegitimate children, we will solve the problem! Yeah, no.

But if someone wants to adopt, more power to them. I have nothing against it.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

My opinion goes as follows:

We are way too many humans on this planet and we should lower the number a bit.

How?
Adopting children and not allowing certain persons to reproduce for X time (this is not as bad as it sounds as we re talking about making them wait a few months, not even a year). That would be time enough for some people to adopt and for the number of humans to be reduced.

Now, I'm conscious about how freak that sounds :P, but I honestly believe that we are way too many humans on the planet and this is a good way to control it without the killin' stuff...

We don't have too many humans. I hear this but hardly get any valid evidence.

[MiLLeR]

Is this Salandrin re-alias'd? Seems like a thread he would make.

[Manhands]

Fuck the OP. It's ridiculous.

But I had this coworker. Extremely intelligent. Girlfriend of 10 years or so. He thought it was completely unethical to have children, not because of overpopulation, but because you were giving life to something that had no choice. The world basically sucked, in his opinion, and you are forcing someone to live in it. True, they have the ability to end their life once they are old enough to understand, but not until then.

He really believed that. And he was a very decent debater. No, he didn't sway me even a little bit toward his side. The hole in this reasoning is simply that, in order for humanity to grow to the point for life not to suck, we need to keep breeding. If you have good genes and have the resources to raise a child, you should do so. Raise them to want to improve mankind. It only takes one person to really change lifestyles and opinions (see any famous mathematician, physicist, or religious figure in history). I for one am glad that people continued having kids through the middle ages. Their lives sucked, but it helped the population continue on.

[p0k83s1]

I won't elaborate too much as it's a pretty common debate.

Why create children when there are so many children out there that need love and are just as young and viable? If you had a child and it was accidently switched at birth with another child you'd love it and raise it just the same as long as you didn't know. The obsession with having biological children is entirely primordial without any logical basis.

Then again, it is so ingrained in the psyche that I understand people succumbing to it. Also, if a couple has two kids or less they aren't a problem in regards to overpopulation.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that your a retard.

[Deleted]

I'd go completely against this and instead say its unethical to actually adopt a child because it doesnt teach the parent who threw it away anything else then that its ok not to take care of a childyou gave birth to.

The problem isnt people not adopting, its people who are making children and not taking care of them

[Deleted]

I am not raising somebody's kid who was to much of a scum bag to raise it themselves.

Why should poor people, drug users, anyone who was unfit to raise a child be able to pass their genes on?

Well, those people you mentioned have all the time to practice making babies :P No work, nothing. Passing genes is kinda hardwired on to human.

[Deleted]

Is this Salandrin re-alias'd? Seems like a thread he would make.

No, but given the number of "strange people " on this forum it was bound that every month at lest 5 idiotic threads would arise. Flavor of the month is now combining a "norm" to a catchy adjective like "unethical".
And let's not start about how retarded it sounds when you use such a word WAAAAy out of it's meaning.

[Deleted]

It's not unethical to have children, at all. It's probably unethical to have 15 children. In modern societies we aren't dealing with the risk of having ½ of our children succumb to various illnesses. I believe it's fine to have 0-6 children as long as you can provide and care for them. It depends on where you're from though, if you live in China, I can see how it would be unethical to have more than 2 children as the growing chinese population has become somewhat of an issue (in China). With the unemployment rate and the baby boomers (that soon will need taking care of) in Europe, I believe that we need more children here.

[diddle]

My thoughts are that your a retard.

/retardhug

[Deleted]

Yeah everyone who has sex with the intention of procreation should have their intestines fed to themselves.

[Total Crica]

I'd go completely against this and instead say its unethical to actually adopt a child because it doesnt teach the parent who threw it away anything else then that its ok not to take care of a childyou gave birth to.

The problem isnt people not adopting, its people who are making children and not taking care of them

since you cant force someone to take care of a child, all you can do is help the child not suffer

and even if you COULD force someone to take care of a child, the child would still suffer - dont think someone being forced to take care of a child is going to lavish any kind of meaningful TLC on the child...

[dextersmith]

I'm not waving my rights to have my own kids to take on other's mistakes. Some people won't use protection; --- typical Maury Povich episode.

[Deleted]

Why are we alive? Wouldn't it be ethical just to kill ourselves? Wouldn't that stop all the fish in the ocean dying from pollution?

Having biological children is unethical?

Someone has to do it. Having your own kid is easier than adopting. A lot of people do adopt.

children out there that need love

You gave a bit of a psuedo-logical emotionless argument , then you said children need love. Doesn't quite fit.