Children?

Seeing as almost all on this board believe in adopting animals from shelters due to the huge rate of animals being killed because of over population, how do you all feel about breeding when there are millions of starving and abused children?

Trick question. Sending them to the cornfield is obvious choice.

Adoption. It's the only choice that makes any sense to me at all. I would never buy a companion animal from a breeder when there are so many who need homes in shelters. I would never create more children when there are so many who need shelter, food, and love. Breeding is the most obnoxiously selfish thing one can do, imho.

I honestly can't even answer this question, it's one of the biggest question marks in my life right now. I'm leaning towards adopt or life of happy solitude though

I'd say either adopt or opt out. I know lots of people say adopting is expensive, and it is, but if you can't afford it, then you don't need and shouldn't have a child anyway, and maybe the price hinders those trying to have kids for status and because of societal pressure. I just think it's more ethical to adopt if one wants children, instead of reproducing even more.

+1

I can't seem to get pregnant, so I guess I'll have to adopt or opt out.

Obviously many people can do both. And I think that the majority of adoptive parents DO do both. That's what I originally wanted but it's probably not going to turn out that way for us.

We are adopting. We've got one son right now and we're adopting him. When he turns four we plan to adopt another. And then we will probably be done. But there's a chance we'll adopt a third. And there's also a chance that we're already done now. Who knows what the future holds?

My experience has taught me that most of the preconceptions people have about adoption are totally wrong. If anyone is seriously intersted, some good basic info that's pretty easy to digest can be gotten from a book called In On It. And there's also a magazine called Adoptive Families. If you read through 6-12 issues you'll get a good overview.

Any of the 3 are fine with me.

Try to adopt in the UK and the kiddie will be ready to move out of your home before he/she has actualy moved into it. Well, almost.

It's currently a bit of a scandal here. Happily the Govt. recently made rumblings about taking speeding up the process seriously.

I think when I'm older I'll adopt 2 or 3 kids.
I wouldn't adopt a newborn, though

Until I met my husband, I was certain I was going to be happily childless forever.

Now, I'm feeling the biological clock ticking. I feel an urge to have at least one child with my hubby. We've both discussed the issue at length, and are both happy to remain childless if we can't have a baby. Personally, adoption is not for us, but we certainly both admire those who do.

Attachment 17641

sorry it's so tiny - you have to click on it to see it

I would support adoption, but I think the only way I will end up with kids is if the biological urge to create them gets too strong.

But I opted out

I think "breeding" is better than having no children at all. As long as one raises one's own child with vegan ethics, and with environmental consciousness, then it's a moral positive for the world. We need more good people in the world, and that comes from positive memetic nurture. (That said, raising a biological child as a meat-eater is certainly unconscionable.)

Adopting is one better still, of course, because you actively interfere in the process of raising a likely socially and environmentally apathetic omnivore (in state care), and create a morally conscious vegan instead.


Not raising any children: +0 good people
Having your own biological child: +1 good person
Adopting a child: -1 destructive person (who might have otherwise resulted), +1 good person.

We can't, however, evenly equate the prevention of a destructive person to the creation of a good one. It may be that the destructive effects of a destructive person far outweigh the positive effects of a good person.

So, for example, maybe: prevention of ONE destructive person = creation of TEN good people.

It's hard to say how they really stack up against each other. Adopting may be eleven times or a hundred and one times better than having a biological child by virtue of having changed the course of that life from morally destructive to good.


Of course, you can also have a similar effect to adoption by advocating for vegan ethics; every now and then somebody will hear your voice and consider a positive change. The more lasting that change, the better.


I do not think that you can compare adopting human children to adopting pets. Human children may not have ideal circumstances in state care, but they (usually) aren't being systematically killed off. Moreover, whether you have a pet bred or adopt, raising a dog or cat is not really carrying on your values in our civilization (it doesn't necessarily add a moral positive beyond avoiding that death).
And finally, whether you adopt a pet or have one bread, the pet is still not biologically yours- unlike in the case of children where there may be compelling reasons to biologically procreate.

Adopting a pet is a moral positive first and foremost in that it prevent suffering and death- having a pet bred for you offers nothing in the way of that. Adopting or birthing and raising a child is a positive first and foremost in that you have the chance to instil a great moral presence in another human being, affecting the world after you in a more lasting and profound way.


If we could say that having a biological child is immoral when you could have adopted instead (a greater good), then we would also have to say that adopting a young child is immoral when you could have adopted a teenager instead. And that having no children is very immoral when you could have adopted a teenager. And that only adopting one teenager is immoral when you could have adopted a couple of them, and every few years (as they go off to college, or move out to work).

Just something to think about.

There's just no way to know how one's kid will turn out. You can increase the chances that they will be an ethical person, but I've met plenty of people who had ****ty childhood's who turned out to be very ethical people, and people who had very good childhood's with decent people who turned out to be not so decent.

Also, if you really want to change peoples' values in the world, it's vastly more efficient to go out and try to do that directly than to put all the effort into raising one individual whom one hopes will have good values.

Yes. Cost and time-wise, there's no doubt about that. With the cost and time of raising one child from birth to leaving the nest, not considering university, you could probably convince hundreds to go veg or at least reduce meat consumption substantially.


Some parents really do a crappy job of instilling morality, no matter how well they may take care of the children in other regards.
Child rearing is also more than just direct parental influence; one must be conscious of the child's peers as well, to avoid corrupting influences. If one's child's friends are eating meat, and particularly if they are drinking alcohol, chances are pretty good that one's child will also engage in that activity out of peer pressure.

There may be some children out there who are just inherently 'evil', and will buck the social norms that they are exposed to, in order to do that which they know is wrong. Psychopathy may be an example of that, as an emotional defect.

I think that if a parent actually does his or her job responsibly, though, it should not be likely.
Not everybody is cut out for it; and if they aren't, they shouldn't be having children.

My husband and I were blessed with 2 children, now adults. Had we not been able to have children we would registered to adopt. Had I not married I would have opted out.

I can recall being a young child in grade school and feeling two things 1) That I never wanted to have any biological children and 2) There are so many kids out there with no one to call mom or dad, that it almost seemed selfish not to adopt, should I decide I ever wanted to raise a child. As it stands today, that is still my position. Fortunately, my biological clock isn't sending off any annoying signals, and if it did, I would chalk it up to hormonal imbalances and ignore it. Fortunately, my man feels the same way I do about either adopting or just having none at all. I don't feel any parental desires, so odds are, I will continue to opt out. Adoption would be my only alternative of choice. I have no patience for children.

No doubt opt out for a bizillion different reasons.

I really thought this thread was going to be about animals when I first read the title and I couldn't understand why this was even a question on this board.

So only people who can afford the cost of adoption are worthy of raising children?

Fostercare adoptions are typically very low cost or free, for the record. The average cost to adoptive parents is $400 (last I read). The state pays the rest of the associated costs (background check, legal fees, home study, etc).

In general, international adoptions are the most expensive. (up to $30,000) Many families fundraise to help them pay for their adoptions. In religious communities adoption is often considered a good deed/moral duty rather than a private choice. In many tight-knit groups (religious or ethnically based) parenting itself is a communal affair and not an individual responsibility.

This whole notion that parents should be able to do the job entirely themselves isolates families and ultimately hurts kids, IMO.

And compared to birth, adoption often costs about the same. The only difference is that insurance usually covers the costs associated with having a bio child whereas it doesn't pay for adoption.

If you adopt a child after you retire, your social security payments go up. I believe it applies to foster children, as well.

I point out the finances of adoption because so many people have the misconception that "adoption is expensive." It's wrong. And it's just one area where people are grossly misinformed about adoption. I strongly recommend that anyone remotely interested in adoption do some research and learn about it before making serious life decisions about growing their family.

As it turns out, fostercare adoption is the least expensive (and thus perhaps the most financially responsible) way to grow a family. If you're the type of parent who wants to save up for your child's college expenses and think that might be difficult to do, but you can afford the basics of childcare, then growing your family through fostercare adoption makes saving for college entirely possible. With a little careful financial planning, you could give your child everything you want to give them. This is one of the reasons we chose this path.


This sounds a little fishy to me so I looked into it. Here's what the SS website says:
"When you qualify for Social Security retirement benefits, your children may also qualify to receive benefits on your record. Your eligible child can be your biological child, adopted child or stepchild. A dependent grandchild may also qualify. "
link: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourchildren.htm

So, the issue is that Social Security benefits are partially calculated by the number of dependents you have. And yes, adopted children count as dependents just like biological children count.

About foster children and SS, that's a tricky issue. The state already compensates foster parents for the care of the foster children. It's a monthly payment. In order to receive any tax deductions or other government assistance related to these children, they have to become your dependents. You can only claim them as dependents if you claim the state's compensation as income and pay taxes on it. It turns out this is only financially sensible if the child is in your care for about 7 months. That's because they have to be in your care more than 6 months for you to claim them for the entire year, but if you receive compensation for the entire year then the untaxed compensation is worth more than the tax deduction. Are you following me? So what ends up happening here is that there's a financial incentive for foster drift. (Foster drift is the name for how children in the system move from home to home without finding permanency of adoption, reunification, or guardianship. It's terrible for children's emotional and intellectual development.) I'm not sure how well this is understood by most foster parents, but it exists nonetheless.

That was actually done a little on purpose so people may see the link between unwanted souls with no home.

Adopt only. My biological clock is ticking, but I'm not at a place in my life where I should be raising kids, so when that time comes, I plan to foster, eventually adopt, but continue to foster through out my life, until life tells me to stop. It was one of the first conversations my manfriend and I had when we got serious. I want kids in my life, I want to help others, I will not give birth. And ElaineV is awesome! I totally look up to you, and one who fosters and adopts, then instills great life lessons, is a winner in my book.

Honestly, I once believed the same way. The cost to raise a child is huge, if you can't afford to adopt one, hoe could you possibly have money to take them to the doctor when they're sick, or feed them, or clothe them? If the money to care for your child is the money that comes out of my taxes, maybe you shouldn't have a child. Honestly, my thoughts. But then my good friend had a baby at 19, lives with her grama, works the best she can, but utilizes her options. She's one of the best mothers I'vep ever seen. Which makes me rethink my stance. I'm assuming you asked wanting an honest answer, and here is mine.