Having biological children is unethical?

[Noomz]

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?

I've thought about it too. But for some reason, my urge to have my own child is still too strong. I dunno I guess I'm just too human.
Though I could probably have my own child AND adopt.

[Deleted]

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 you are way too young (or immature) to discuss this and should be infracted for opening a flamebait thread.
*smileyface* for tension relief

[Dezerte]

Forcing people to adopt wouldn't be ethical, neither would murdering the unwanted babies. So I don't think having biological children is unethical either, but if you want to adopt, and love the child like it was your own, you should. The most important thing for both biological & adopted children is to feel wanted.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Pretty big strawman there.

There are actually people out there who think this way. (yeah, those conversations didn't last long) I threw that out there, knowing full well what it was, in hopes of a "No, but here are my ideas for dealing with the children in question who currently exist." Of course, that didn't happen, and a potential line of discussion died in the water.

Biologically, we bred to ensure the survival of our species. Women still get that urge (commonly referred to as the tick of the biological clock) on occasion. Sometimes a woman looks at a man and get that stupid notion of, "I bet we'd make a pretty baby." Some women were raised by idiots and they somehow get it in their head that the only way to keep a man is to have their kid.

I think you can say I became a bitter person when I found out that I couldn't have my own screaming spawns. Of course, my reasons for wanting one were selfish: I was a lonely person who wanted to raise a human being and hope it didn't turn out to be a holy terror like I was. I think hubby needs to reproduce, in hopes that the best of his genes continue because our world needs more people like him in it.

I just hate those self righteous mommy bloggers who swear babies are incapable of expression anger (I know otherwise very well).

[Hyve]

Having a child is about more then just having sex, and nine months later a little baby pops out. There is a lot more, emotionally, psychologically, and physically then that. Sure, there are plenty of children who also need homes and love, but are you seriously saying that people should feel bad about a natural process, because other people couldn't handle their own kids?

[Deleted]

Absolutely not. What a ridiculous question.

Please lord, lock this thread. "Off topic" MMOC has been falling to new levels as of late.

[pateuvasiliu]

My wife and I are not planning on having children.

I do not hold it against a responsible couple if they have the desire to raise a child or two. Part of me does feel like people who have large families are being selfish.

I don't get that.

How is that selfish?

[AeneasBK]

I find it surprising how many people seem to think its the genes that determine a childs success in life rather than its environment.

If 2 parents are capable of providing a loving home for a child; would it really stand less of a chance in life if its biological parents were "poor" or "drug addicts"?

[Varabently]

I get why people adopt, but the options are:

1. Raise your own kid
2. Raise someone else's kid

If I am going to have a baby no matter what, why would I choose #2 when #1 is on the table? There's plenty of couples who can't have their own biological kids (gay, infertile, whatever) who can adopt kids. I feel for the foster kids and the orphans, I really do, but it's just not my problem. Frankly we need to loosen the reigns on the abortion laws so there are less unwanted kids out there in the first place. The root of the problem here is unwanted kids, not heterosexual couples being "unethical" and having their own kids.

It's unethical to not have free contraception available to everyone and not let women choose when to have kids.

[Celista]

I think more people should adopt, I think for many people having a biological child means more to some than perhaps it actually should (passing on of your genes and therefore living forever, the child representing the union of a couple, etc). There are a lot of children in this world who need a loving home.

But I'm a weirdo, I believe parenting should require a license (because too many people don't know wtf they are doing, and why do we need a license to drive but not have children?) and that parents shouldn't have more children than they could actually afford.

Just imo.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Having a child is about more then just having sex, and nine months later a little baby pops out. There is a lot more, emotionally, psychologically, and physically then that. Sure, there are plenty of children who also need homes and love, but are you seriously saying that people should feel bad about a natural process, because other people couldn't handle their own kids?

I personally think there needs to be a "breeding gap". Sort of like the opposite of the baby boomers. Basically somehow just stop any new children from being born for a fixed number of years and use that time to do something about the current situation involving displaced children. Don't care what, just so long as something is figured out, so that the child welfare system isn't so screwed up. Plus, in the mean time, it'd give people time to stop and reflect. Maybe somewhere we can get some sense (or a lot of contraception) into these idiot people who keep popping kids out.

Masturbation material for all!

[Klingers]

I'd put it slightly differently... Having children is never going to be unethical but if you ever have a child that you can't dedicate the time and money to raise well with decent values and respect for their fellow human being, if you can't send them to a good school and have time to PARENT them, it's IRRESPONSIBLE to have a child. The end.

Same goes if you live in third-world shitsville. Bringing another mouth to feed into that kind of world with no chance to better themselves. Just don't.

[Deleted]

that parents shouldn't have more children than they could actually afford.

yeh that will turn out well. At the end of the day we all know its your bank account that counts when rising a child.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

I find it surprising how many people seem to think its the genes that determine a childs success in life rather than its environment.

If 2 parents are capable of providing a loving home for a child; would it really stand less of a chance in life if its biological parents were "poor" or "drug addicts"?

A close friend of mind is the offspring of two cokeheads (his mother did drugs while knocked up). Yeah, he's not stable at all. Drug addicted parents sometimes screw up the chemical balance in their kids' brains.

[Velaniz]

If 2 parents are capable of providing a loving home for a child; would it really stand less of a chance in life if its biological parents were "poor" or "drug addicts"?

Possibly. It's very likely, in fact, that there could've been underlying biological reasons for why they found themselves in the circumstances that they did. People who are drug addicts or poorer probably do, on average, have lower IQs than people who don't share their misfortune.

In fact, I'd say it'd be hugely counter-productive for humankind if the very kind of people that should pass on their genes instead opt to adopt a child that might've come from such a background.

[Deleted]

I personally think there needs to be a "breeding gap". Sort of like the opposite of the baby boomers. Basically somehow just stop any new children from being born for a fixed number of years and use that time to do something about the current situation involving displaced children. Don't care what, just so long as something is figured out, so that the child welfare system isn't so screwed up. Plus, in the mean time, it'd give people time to stop and reflect. Maybe somewhere we can get some sense (or a lot of contraception) into these idiot people who keep popping kids out.

Masturbation material for all!

Basically a generation without kids? Who's going to pay for those old pensioners' benefits?

[Hyve]

I personally think there needs to be a "breeding gap". Sort of like the opposite of the baby boomers. Basically somehow just stop any new children from being born for a fixed number of years and use that time to do something about the current situation involving displaced children. Don't care what, just so long as something is figured out, so that the child welfare system isn't so screwed up. Plus, in the mean time, it'd give people time to stop and reflect. Maybe somewhere we can get some sense (or a lot of contraception) into these idiot people who keep popping kids out.

Masturbation material for all!

Even a short term suspension is a terrible idea, ignoring all the immoral issues you'll face on enforcing it, but also the age gap. China has a massive issue now where they've got too many elderly, and too many young. There are not enough skilled, middle-aged workers and it's taking a toll.

The same would happen here. Even stopping it for 5 years (which, would be the minimum I could guess that would have some impact), would mean the same thing could happen here. A serious skill gap in the market, leading to an economic crisis.

[Deleted]

A close friend of mind is the offspring of two cokeheads (his mother did drugs while knocked up). Yeah, he's not stable at all. Drug addicted parents sometimes screw up the chemical balance in their kids' brains.

The only daughter of a couple of heroin addicted hippies in the 70's is now head of marketing of an important newspaper, with stable family and one of the soundest person I know.
Anectodal is that.

[Warlord Booty]

One of my besties is a foster kid and her and her... "parents" always seem to acknowledge their "arrangement" as strictly business. she doesn't mess up, they provide the basics and get a government check. She never calls them mom or dad, but by their first names. She has 5 "siblings" and they are all that way.

There is another boy at school that is adopted and he's a cool kid and all, but said once that there was no connection to them and as soon as he hit 18, he was out of there... though there was nothing bad, he calls them his roommates.

[Varabently]

I find it surprising how many people seem to think its the genes that determine a childs success in life rather than its environement.

If 2 parents are capable of providing a loving home for a child; would it really stand less of a chance in life if its biological parents were "poor" or "drug addicts"?

I find it surprising that people think environment has anything to do with a child's success in life.

For your second question: absolutely. Not only are poor and drug addicts likely to engage in risky behaviors while pregnant (doing drugs and poor nutrition/health habits) increasing risk factors for everything you don't want to happen, but they are also likely to have poor genes to begin with. There aren't nobel laureate, phD, highly intelligent poor people. Those don't exist, and if they do, they are incredibly rare. The type of person who is going to be poor and/or addicted to drugs is that way because of their genes. Those same genes get passed to the kid.

You're kidding yourself if you think the environment is more important than genes. The reason you see poor people rise up and get better than their situation is because of their genes. The environment directly informed by the genes (I am a loving, nice, intelligent person so I create an environment that helps my child grow). The problem with laying it on the environment is that you are looking only at the surface. Sure there are environmental issues that genes don't control (the weather, getting hit by a bus, etc.), but by and large, the environment a child exists in is the image of the parents' genes.

For instance, if you are having a kid and you buy a bunch of parenting books, read up on it online, get a good environment set up for them, etc. those things aren't really going to be the deciding factors. The fact that you're the type of person who would do those things mean you are already a good parent, i.e. a good person, so your kids are inheriting that goodness.

Now, all that being said, can a random kid grow up OK when put in a good household? Sure, but only those kids who have the capacity (brain chemistry, physical constitution, etc. all informed by their genes) already to do so. But this has nothing to do with environment, clearly. If environment had any strong influence, people wouldn't get out of terrible places. We all know someone who is incredibly intelligent, but began life in a terrible place. My grandfather was super super poor when he was a kid, but ended up making a lot of money and traveling, retiring early, etc. He had the genes and made something of himself. Genes (and therefore luck) play the biggest part here.

Have you ever seen a family with multiple kids but the kids turned out completely differently? They had the same parents, got the same education, one is successful and one isn't. That would never happen if environment played a key role, but it would often happen if genes played a key role. And that happens all the time. You see siblings who take completely different routes. Some are successful and some end up drug addicts, murderers, etc. This nature vs nurture debate is a ludicrous one, as you can easily trace back almost all environmental factors to genes. Sure environment plays a part, but only because the genes of those closest to you (those who GAVE you the genes) inform the environment.