Having biological children is unethical?

[OzoAndIndi]

*shrug* I dunno, some couples actually want to create a life together that's a part of both of them and is a genetically linked next branch on the family tree.

Of course, there also are many people who do both, have one/more and adopt one/more.

[Deleted]

Having biological children IS unethical, especially if they are under age of consent, you filthy man.

[diddle]

1) Adoption takes years to process, depending on who you are and what you want.
2) A better solution would be enabling abortion and birth control instead of forcing women to have children they don't want because of religious reasons then putting those children into an underfunded state system.
3) The vast majority of your threads are closed because they are just straight bad.
5) There is no four.
6) You claimed something is 'common debate' and then don't show how it is common at all.

1. Fair counterargument, but at the same time shouldn't that just mean adoption should be made easier?
2. The things you mention are also positive, but that doesn't affect this conversation as there was no mention of forced adoption.
3. Not even close to majority, let alone vast. At most two, maybe three of many.
5. There is no four.
6. I've found it to be a common debate on forums.

[cityguy193]

i don't understand why anyone would want to bring a life into this world at all. i don't see why they can't adopt one of the 18432049230948923480923489243 children who have no home. i don't understand, i will never understand. because i do not want children.

i am also not seeking an answer from anyone else. whatever justifications you have for needing to make a new life when there are plenty others out there to shower love and affection upon, keep them to yourself. because it'll just be a waste of time as whatever you say will not make me understand.

Because those are not your offspring. Thats the answer.
We are programmed first and foremost to pass on our genes, not to love children.

[Deleted]

Having bionic children is much more unethical.

[Baphomette]

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are "did that Salandris guy get banned from starting new threads?"

[Deleted]

Next debate: living is unethical? Maybe dying too?

[diddle]

My thoughts are "did that Salandris guy get banned from starting new threads?"

Who the hell is Salandris? Can't be good, as this is the second comparison I've received.

[Deleted]

Adding to Earth rising overpopulation is unethical. Don't you want to be able to eat bacon and beef for the rest of your life? At the rate we're having children right now we'll be eating soybeans and rice for breakfast, dinner and supper in no time at all. Stop having children! Think about the bacon!!

If you really want to take care of something that will be useless for 18 years then adopt a cat.

[obdigore]

1. Fair counterargument, but at the same time shouldn't that just mean adoption should be made easier?
2. The things you mention are also positive, but that doesn't affect this conversation as there was no mention of forced adoption.
3. Not even close to majority, let alone vast. At most two, maybe three of many.
5. There is no four.
6. I've found it to be a common debate on forums.

1) Never said it shouldn't, but that is absolutely a reason some people have biological children instead of adopting. It is easier, more fun, and takes less time. Also less costly if you have insurance.
2) Really? If we cut down on the number of unwanted children, only those up for adoption would be ones where both parents died and either have no other family or no other family capable of taking care of them. That would create a severe lack of adoptable children for those who are unable to have children biologically but want to adopt, much less your suggestions that people should adopt instead of having biological children.
3) Really? You know anyone can click on your name and then choose 'view started threads', right?
5) Still no four.
6) What forums? Where? Saying things doesn't prove it is true.

[rhoark]

"Viable" is too low a standard. On the other hand, if you're two standards of deviation above the population in some significant measure, it would be unethical not to pass on your genes.

[boccko]

1: Nobody ever tells you to raise somebody elses kids.

A fair percent of your taxes is spent on raising other people's kids.

Anyway, @diddle: you won't find logic in it, it's hormonal. Some people might be able to present you with some kind of justification, but in the end it's just genes passing on themselves, and using us as tools.

[Deleted]

Who the hell is Salandris? Can't be good, as this is the second comparison I've received.

One who makes threads that you can't tell so easily whether are troll threads or just really good questions.

[N-7]

No, it isn't unethical (what's with the ...unethical topics?). I am in no way, shape or form responsible for other people kids. If I want to have a kid I WILL have a kid.

[Wafffles]

People seem to forget that, as awesome as humans are, we are still currently confined to the laws of genetics. It doesn't really make sense to tell intelligent, healthy, non-addicted couples that they should forgo passing on their own genes because someone else's child - not necessarily, but quite possibly, from a background of poor intelligence and poor mental health, drugs, etc. - ought to be adopted before more children are made. It's especially foolish to tell parents who took the time to get a sufficient job and plan out their lives before starting a family that the burden is on them to help control world population while the parents who accidentally got pregnant, or got pregnant and then realized they couldn't provide for the child, make their population-augmenting mistakes with impunity.

Or, of course, maybe people just want to have their own children if they are medically capable of it and financially capable of providing for it, just like animals have been doing for billions of years, without somehow being criticized or restricted from doing so until everyone else's kids are taken care of.

[diddle]

1) Never said it shouldn't, but that is absolutely a reason some people have biological children instead of adopting. It is easier, more fun, and takes less time. Also less costly if you have insurance.
2) Really? If we cut down on the number of unwanted children, only those up for adoption would be ones where both parents died and either have no other family or no other family capable of taking care of them. That would create a severe lack of adoptable children for those who are unable to have children biologically but want to adopt, much less your suggestions that people should adopt instead of having biological children.
3) Really? You know anyone can click on your name and then choose 'view started threads', right?
5) Still no four.
6) What forums? Where? Saying things doesn't prove it is true.

1. I admit it is easier to have your own children, doesnt have anything to do with ethics. The right thing is never easy.
2. You make another good contribution, but it doesn't alter the debate on whether it is more ethical to adopt.
3. Most of them were closed because they were duplicate or derailed in one case. Just checked.
5. This is four.
6. Perhaps I was wrong on that account, does not affect the debate in question.

[Fullmetal89]

Nobody's blaming the kids. But it's nobody else's problem, and doesn't have anything to do with others wanting their own kids. I don't see what the debate is here. How can it possibly be unethical for someone to raise their own kids instead of someone else's? It's unethical for crappy people to bring kids into the world that they don't intend on raising well. There's no reason to project the blame onto anyone else who doesn't have anything to do with it. That's just ridiculous.

^What Lord Frieza said.

Honestly OP what do you want us to say, your opinion is well your opinion. I think you are a bit nutty if you think it's unethical for two people who love each other to want to have their own kids. It's not their fault that some irresponsible person decided to bring a child unto this world that they had no intention of raising. It's unfortunate for the children since they aren't to blame but that doesn't mean that other people should have to take care of your kid. This may sound like something out of some evil dystopian society but if it was up to me I would force a vasectomy on people who cannot hold a job, or have no sense of responsibility.

[diddle]

^What Lord Frieza said.

Honestly OP what do you want us to say, your opinion is well your opinion. I think you are a bit nutty if you think it's unethical for two people who love each other to want to have their own kids. It's not their fault that some irresponsible person decided to bring a child unto this world that they had no intention of raising. It's unfortunate for the children since they aren't to blame but that doesn't mean that other people should have to take care of your kid. This may sound like something out of some evil dystopian society but if it was up to me I would force a vasectomy on people who cannot hold a job, or have no sense of responsibility.

By beingly slightly provocative you hear more of what people want to say It's not unethical, it's completely natural. It's going above and beyond if you adopt a child, it doesn't make you a bad person if you don't. It's essentially the most primal, inherent instrict.

[Thetruth1400]

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?

A rude way, but direct of saying the truth of things. Those that should be having children aren't, while those that shouldn't be are. It shouldn't be up to everyone else to raise the children of those too irresponsible to take care of the life they have made. I'd rather have a child, born into a loving home from parents whom are intelligent enough to raise them and care for them, then a child born from the mistake of a drunken night between a prostitute and a drug addict. The chances that the first child will go on to be successful are just so much greater, that it's not even worth it to consider the second child.

Sure, that sounds harsh as hell, but reality isn't the nicest thing out there.

On another side note, there are about 62 million children from the ages of 0 - 15. There are 206 million people between 16 - 64. Pair those off into two parent households, and you're at 103 million households. Lets say that of those adults, only 50% of them currently want to have children. That's 51.5 million households that want children. If we go by your logic, that means that at most, every one of those families would be able to have 1.2 children each. If half of that half wanted more than one child, that would mean in the least, there would be a need for 77.3 million children. That would mean that we would need 15.3 million more children then we currently have to even fulfill just one additional child for half of the half that would actually want children.

Beyond all that though, if we don't procreate, we're going to extinct ourselves as a society. If only 1/3 of the population is young, which is what it currently is, eventually it will get to the point where the young can no longer sustain the old and everything collapses, just because you think people shouldn't be able to have kids and only should accept, for lack of a better term, throw away children.

[Clockworks]

Well the day when i have a wife and we would like children i am not adopting one thats for sure!
The point to me with family exept having a good time is to pass on ''our'' genes to the future, and yeah i have my genes in really high regards.

Adoption if for ppl who have biological malfunctions and cannot get their own ones at best.
But yeah ppl who live in poverty and abuse drugs 'n shit /or religious nutcases should stop fucking like rabbits, since it is really not helping the situation.