I would say that most don't really give a shit either way. When I was in high school they had all the dopey programs teaching safe sex none of us gave a shit. The thing that had the largest impact was probably when about 5 of the girls in my class all got knocked up and dropped out. That got peoples attention.
Parents often do a rather poor or incomplete job of it. It's not like the class would be raising the kids, either. Are you also against sex education? 'cause many people think that parents should teach their kids that sort of thing, yet when it is left up to them a significant number fail to do so.
I'm more in favour of people needing a license to breed. However, teaching people how to be parents shouldn't involve mandatory courses etc. Maybe if the parents are recovering drug addicts or alcoholics
Last edited by Letmesleep; 2013-01-22 at 08:35 AM.
I agree that the orphan population is a problem that needs to be addressed, but to call it a moral obligation (sorry for repeating myself over and over again) is self-righteous. When you phrase it like this, you are saying that every family that does not adopt is immoral, or as you state, selfish. There are many moral aspects to this discussion, but families choosing not to adopt is not one of them. I respect your friends parents as well.
A lot of people find satisfaction in doing good deeds, should they stop doing them because it makes them feel good? That would be selfish right? This is the line of logic your following. As a father of two, I do find great satisfaction in taking care of my children and making them happy, and you call me selfish for it. Now that I'm older, I realize all that my parents sacrificed for me to be where I am, and you call them selfish? Immoral? We are talking about families that are perfectly capable of raising happy children, and for you to sit up on your high horse and call out healthy families for being selfish and immoral is baffling to me.
You can argue the case that people who will bring a new life into this world in very unfortunate circumstances should not, but to say "I don't personally believe it's yours or anyone else's right to procreate no matter what" is, for a lack of a better word, insane. It's one thing to advocate fixing the orphan problem, which I don't have a problem with, but this oppressive sentiment that people should not procreate to fix the problem illustrates a profound ignorance of not understanding the ramifications of what would happen if your belief became a reality. I see that you would not vote against people having children, but the mere sentiment is bothersome enough.
I agree with most of this, it is not unreasonable to advocate for adoption. But you alienate all parents who do have biological children by saying they shouldn't because it's "playing god and being selfish." People should look outside their bubbles and realize that there are a lot of suffering people in our world and we can do something to help them, whether it be adopting a child, or even giving money to orphanages or charities that help these people. There are solutions to these problems, but telling people it's their moral responsibility to adopt, and to have children of their own is not their right, is the wrong solution.
I am all for it, but it really is not practical and would never go over well.
We already make people get licenses to drive and look at how many shitty drivers are still on the roads. I do not see anything different if we required a license and training for parents.
Again, all for it. If we could do it without majorly violating human rights, but we can't.
I would prefer that we just focus on improving education and not rewarding ignorance and people that have kids.
I like sandwiches
I also think adoption is a social moral obligation.I agree that the orphan population is a problem that needs to be addressed, but to call it a moral obligation (sorry for repeating myself over and over again) is self-righteous. When you phrase it like this, you are saying that every family that does not adopt is immoral, or as you state, selfish. There are many moral aspects to this discussion, but families choosing not to adopt is not one of them. I respect your friends parents as well.
Not everyone needs to adopt, but there are SO MANY children worldwide that need a home that it has become obvious that we are failing at our moral obligation, and it is not self-righteous to say that. We should take care of our own, we are all members of the human race.
That being said, adoption processes need to become easier--and cheaper--in order to incentivize adoption; and post-adoption support needs to be given to parents who adopt children with special needs, because those children are the most difficult to adopt out.
It's self-righteous to say that parents who choose to have their own biological children are selfish and "playing god," when they have a "moral obligation" to adopt. That's what the whole discussion was about. Do you disagree with this sentiment? I understand that adoption is a problem, and part of the solution would be to make the adoption process easier, but looking down on people who have children because they are not fulfilling what you deem to be that individuals moral obligation is unreasonable.
If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption due to cost or other limitations, no I do not think that is selfish.
If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me, that is in questionable moral ground if the majority of couples choose this route, considering the sheer amount of children who need a home.
If a couple, considering all of the reproductive/parenting options available, rules out adoption simply because they want to have a little mini-me AND they knowingly have poor genetics that have a high likelihood of producing offspring *severe* psychological/physiological issues (things like down syndrome or more serious inherited issues), then that couple is in my opinion acting selfishly.