Adoption

[Polednice]

Given that the world has an issue with its population size, and also that we understand that the biological purpose of having a child is to perpetuate our genetic information, is it more ethical to adopt a child than to have one's own? I'd perhaps even go so far as to say it's selfish to have one's own when so many children are without parents. I don't think there is any paternal or maternal yearning that cannot be fulfilled by an adopted child, as any parent of one will tell you, so although it seems fundamentally natural and proper, I consider it an indulgence with our current knowledge for people to have their own kids.

 

Perhaps there will be issues with the age of children up for adoption, as I could totally understand parents wanting a baby, and there may not be so many (I have no idea), but I think all the other arguments - about wanting to see what a child with your genes would look/be like, and a mother's desire to have a baby inside her - are outweighed by the alternative. I suppose if everyone did this, there wouldn't be enough children up for adoption to meet the demand, but I think people ought to be aware enough of the issues at hand for the supply to always be met.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Polednice

[zapatos]

Given that the world has an issue with its population size, and also that we understand that the biological purpose of having a child is to perpetuate our genetic information, is it more ethical to adopt a child than to have one's own? I'd perhaps even go so far as to say it's selfish to have one's own when so many children are without parents. I don't think there is any paternal or maternal yearning that cannot be fulfilled by an adopted child, as any parent of one will tell you, so although it seems fundamentally natural and proper, I consider it an indulgence with our current knowledge for people to have their own kids.

 

Perhaps there will be issues with the age of children up for adoption, as I could totally understand parents wanting a baby, and there may not be so many (I have no idea), but I think all the other arguments - about wanting to see what a child with your genes would look/be like, and a mother's desire to have a baby inside her - are outweighed by the alternative. I suppose if everyone did this, there wouldn't be enough children up for adoption to meet the demand, but I think people ought to be aware enough of the issues at hand for the supply to always be met.

Me raising your child does nothing for my biological purpose of perpetuating my genetic material.

 

Given the commitment required to rear a child, I would never agree that having children is a selfish act.

 

A friend of mine married a woman and adopted the woman's young child. They then had a child together. He told me the satisfaction he receives from his own child is much greater than what he gets from his adopted child. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that adopted children meet yearnings equally as well as natural children.

 

I don't think there is any ethical dilemma when choosing to adopt or have your own. It would be easier to make the argument that childless people are selfish and unethical.

[Polednice]

Me raising your child does nothing for my biological purpose of perpetuating my genetic material.

Indeed, but my point is that the perpetuation of one's genes should not be anything special that we aspire to.

 

Given the commitment required to rear a child, I would never agree that having children is a selfish act.

The choices here are adoption or a biological child, both of which include rearing. The proposed selfishness comes from ignoring the suffering of children in need, and the state of the planet. The fact that raising children is difficult doesn't negate this.

 

A friend of mine married a woman and adopted the woman's young child. They then had a child together. He told me the satisfaction he receives from his own child is much greater than what he gets from his adopted child. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that adopted children meet yearnings equally as well as natural children.

I don't necessarily deny that, but I think this is something to be looked into. His feelings might not have been the same had he been there since the adopted child's birth, and a greater awareness of evolution and biology might curb people's natural affinity to prefer their own children.

 

I don't think there is any ethical dilemma when choosing to adopt or have your own. It would be easier to make the argument that childless people are selfish and unethical.

And how exactly would that latter argument hold on a planet of 7 billion people where population growth is not required?

Edited June 6, 2012 by Polednice

[zapatos]

Indeed, but my point is that the perpetuation of one's genes should not be anything special that we aspire to.

Maybe it shouldn't be, but it certainly is. And while this may be a little selfish, I am very glad that not even one of my ancestors throughout the history of life on this planet decided to adopt instead of having a child of their own.

 

The choices here are adoption or a biological child, both of which include rearing. The proposed selfishness comes from ignoring the suffering of children in need, and the state of the planet. The fact that raising children is difficult doesn't negate this.

So if it is selfish to ignore the suffering of children by not adopting them, why limit your criticism to those people who want to have children of their own? Shouldn't everyone adopt children? Singles, older couples, corporations? You seem to be picking on the one group that is already contemplating doing something good for children.

 

I don't necessarily deny that, but I think this is something to be looked into. His feelings might not have been the same had he been there since the adopted child's birth, and a greater awareness of evolution and biology might curb people's natural affinity to prefer their own children.

Should be easy enough to find out if awareness makes a difference. A quick poll to see if scientists, or maybe even specifically biologists, to see what percentage of them adopted instead of having a child of their own.

 

And how exactly would that latter argument hold on a planet of 7 billion people where population growth is not required?

I meant that couples who decided to remain childless are being selfish. They should have more resources to adopt than the people who are having children of their own.

[Polednice]

Maybe it shouldn't be, but it certainly is. And while this may be a little selfish, I am very glad that not even one of my ancestors throughout the history of life on this planet decided to adopt instead of having a child of their own.

Well the "should" is the important part - the fact that it is, is trivial, as that's the reason I started the thread. If your ancestors hadn't procreated, you wouldn't be around to complain, so the hindsight argument isn't doing much for me.

 

So if it is selfish to ignore the suffering of children by not adopting them, why limit your criticism to those people who want to have children of their own? Shouldn't everyone adopt children? Singles, older couples, corporations? You seem to be picking on the one group that is already contemplating doing something good for children.

Because, as I stated clearly in the OP, there would not be enough children up for adoption if everyone went in for it, and it would be stupid to think that children needing caring homes should go to anyone other than adults who want them.

 

Should be easy enough to find out if awareness makes a difference. A quick poll to see if scientists, or maybe even specifically biologists, to see what percentage of them adopted instead of having a child of their own.

The kind of awareness that's required is a culture change, not a bit of education. It would also be necessary to poll people who had both an adopted and unadopted child, otherwise it would be guesswork.

 

I meant that couples who decided to remain childless are being selfish. They should have more resources to adopt than the people who are having children of their own.

The response to this is the same as my second comment.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Polednice

[doG]

The choices here are adoption or a biological child, both of which include rearing.

False, those are not the only choices. I married a widow with 3 kids and fathered 2 of my own and reared all of them. One of her kids dropped a grandchild on my doorstep and I reared her too. Now I'm a widower with a new girlfriend and kid number 7, stepchild #5, I'm a dad to, a young man that's never had anyone to call dad. I don't think it selfish or indulgent at all that I've fathered 2 of my own along the way, the oldest of which now has a stepchild of her own. Some of us have the heart to do both.

Edited June 6, 2012 by doG

[John Cuthber]

I am very glad that not even one of my ancestors throughout the history of life on this planet decided to adopt instead of having a child of their own.

 

 

How would you know?

In particular, not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of fathers adopt someone else's child without knowing it.

Way back in history that was, if anything, even more common.

[zapatos]

How would you know?

Because I exist.

 

(Side Joke: Did you know that having children was hereditary? If you parents didn't have any, you wouldn't have any either!)

Edited June 6, 2012 by zapatos

[jeskill]

I think that the point John Cuthber was making is that contributing genes to the child does not automatically make someone a parent. Parenting a child makes someone a parent. You may think that your long line of grandparents are genetically linked, but it's entirely plausible that somewhere along the line, an adoption occurred that eventually led to your genes continuing along.

Edited June 15, 2012 by jeskill

[menageriemanor]

As far as official records of parentage, through birth certificates...

 

An unrecorded adoption, quite likely to pop up, in backgrounds, some never bothered to record births, some just said it was overlooked. There are still some very elderly people living lives of extreme inconvenience, because they never got a birth certificate, as their rural/illiterate/slack parents never registered the birth, but many women married pregnant with another man's child, knowingly or not. Also, the likelihood of later pregnancies being not the husband's child are regular enough not to cause a ripple in genealogical researchers tea. I research bomber crew from WW2 and the difference between official records and birth certs is quite often eyebrow raising. Then you get the reality vs records. Back then, you could move to a new area, change your name and life story, and people simply believed you. Even getting through official records.

 

I believed for some time, I was looking at a very respectable widow, with an only son in a respectable job, killed over Germany, but in the 1910s, her 'husband' had been married for 26 years, to another woman, with a 25 yo daughter. Officially, in the military, her son's records were fantasy, and I don't know if the son ever knew. That's 20th century.

 

Marriage, for the peasants of England in the middle ages, was jumping over the broom. No official records..Only the wealthy and titled had official marriages, precisely to settle claims of titles and estates. For centuries, the aristocracy had a saying,' heir and spare' If you weren't happy in your marriage, you produced a male heir and a spare, (male), daughters didn't count, and the wife could entertain herself. Love had often nothing to do with linking estates and strengthening political/family ties. One Duchess was REALLY peeved when she had 6 straight daughters.

Edited February 17, 2013 by menageriemanor

[John Cuthber]

Just to clarify, I was making the point that there are a lot of people out their who do not know who their biological father is. So it's entirely possible that of of your ancestors "chose to adopt" because they didn't realise they were making that choice.

 

Anyway, to get back to the original point

This

"Me raising your child does nothing for my biological purpose of perpetuating my genetic material."
simply isn't true.

Any child is going to have DNA that is very nearly identical to yours. Adopting them means that they and their DNA continues and , since that's almost identical to yours, most of your DNA is also preserved for future generations.

The effect is more obvious if you are adopting the children of a relative, but it's a real effect no matter who you adopt.

 

Adoption makes evolutionary sense, especially if you can't have children of your own.

[SamBridge]

Indeed, but my point is that the perpetuation of one's genes should not be anything special that we aspire to.

 

 

The choices here are adoption or a biological child, both of which include rearing. The proposed selfishness comes from ignoring the suffering of children in need, and the state of the planet. The fact that raising children is difficult doesn't negate this.

 

 

I don't necessarily deny that, but I think this is something to be looked into. His feelings might not have been the same had he been there since the adopted child's birth, and a greater awareness of evolution and biology might curb people's natural affinity to prefer their own children.

 

 

And how exactly would that latter argument hold on a planet of 7 billion people where population growth is not required?

The necessity to perpetuate one's genes is an extrapolation that humans created. In reality itself, there is no recognition of perpetuation of genes, events simply happen which lead to genes getting carried on, so there is no logical reason to base actions off of it's global necessity. What exactly is it necessary for anyway? In nature evolution will act on it's own anyway. If you want to adopt a child go ahead, nature doesn't care, if their genes are really that self destructive they won't reproduce anyway, or they could be a genius like Isaac Newton. Either way, we're the only one's concerned with genes. If you could ask a fierce predator animal like a shark, it probably wouldn't care about genes or having kids, it would care about "doing it" when it wanted to.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge