Applying shelter pet logic with human overpopulation... - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 12-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
So we can all agree that there is overpopulation. Both with companion animals and humans. Many humans won't buy bred companion animals because too many die in shelters, and they want to "save a life". Why then, is that logic not used with real live children who are hungry and dying? People would rather, in many cases, do IV which is very expensive, risk of failure, and takes a long time rather than adopt. IV obviously results in yet another human life, thus increasing the population whilist letting an existing life suffer.

Why then, is there no push to adopt existing suffering children and babies like there is to adopt shelter companion animals? Amongst many families there is even a stigma against adoption of a human, whether or not there is an opnion on shelter dogs/cats.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 12-25-2012, 09:25 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229

That's a good question. Did this come up from my comment in the other thread haha? 

 

But yeah. Maybe there is more awareness for adopting animals than there are for adopting kids. I could sort of understand why. Kids are a huge commitment, much more so than a pet, so it can be a bit sketchy to advertise adoption to people all over who just feels "sorry" for the kids but really can't handle them. Then again, there is always screening, so if those measures are put in place, I don't see why there can't be more awareness for it. I know my neighbors have 2 adopted children after their own. It would have been better had they just adopted from the start, but hey, at least they did adopt and they are more than capable.

 

Also, people think it's somehow "their right" to have their own child, regardless of overpopulation issues. I'm not going to say it's not, or that they "can't" have one, but I would advocate people preferabbly not doing so. Ultimately this doesn't just have an impact on us, but overpopulation also causes and expansion of people that push more wildlife habitats out of the way, animals have nowhere to go, and they THEY ARE BLAMED for being overpopulated. It's disgusting. I hate it when anyone says animals are "overpopulated." NO. It's the humans who keep breeding and spreading, not wanting to live in harmony with these beings and instead trying to push them out of the way. They have nowhere to go so we see more of them. It's ironically funny how people blame the animals for problems they created.  It's cool for me though, cuz if I get a house, most wildlife will be welcome around and will be safe if they come around my place. :)

 

Plus, it seems like birthing a child hurts. Why put yourself through that as there are already plenty of children that need your love already? Seems silly.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#3 Old 12-25-2012, 09:31 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
I did actually think about it with the other thread! I also have a cousin who has three IVF kids.

I agree with you as well that its human encroachment on wilderness and not the other way around. It feels like overpopulation is the biggest issue facing the health of the planet and EVERYONE on it that no one wants to talk about, or even acknowledge.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 12-25-2012, 09:33 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

Excellent point,

I personally have no intention of having my own kids. I may adopt. I do not wish to create life but with life that is already here it is a good thing to give them proper care. Still I am not sure I want children. Seems like a pretty big responsibility.

 

I guess the difference is in wanting to have kids who descend from you.

Cato is offline  
#5 Old 12-25-2012, 09:41 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Keeping blood lines going seems archaic and non-relevant to modern world. I wouldn't want to birth anything, but I don't want to adopt either. I don't like children/babies.


Just from a logical perspective alone though, breeding children at all right now seems... cruel.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#6 Old 12-25-2012, 09:54 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

.
Just from a logical perspective alone though, breeding children at all right now seems... cruel.

+1 and in more ways than one.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#7 Old 12-25-2012, 10:13 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

Right, and you don't have to :) I probably won't either.

 

Personally I have a problem with the act of creating sentient life now or otherwise. 

 

As I don't want to have kids I do not understand why other people want to. There may be urges to have babies. I don't have it, others might. There is nothing logical about urges if you have them you have them. Contribution by people that had their own kids should help with this. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Keeping blood lines going seems archaic and non-relevant to modern world. I wouldn't want to birth anything, but I don't want to adopt either. I don't like children/babies.
Just from a logical perspective alone though, breeding children at all right now seems... cruel.
Cato is offline  
#8 Old 12-25-2012, 10:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026

First, question your assumptions.

 

Many would not agree that there is an overpopulation problem of either companion animals or humans. For example, Nathan Winograd has written a compelling argument that all shelter animals could find suitable homes without even stopping all breeders. It would simply take a commitment to a "No Kill Revolution" which would involve some other things like TNR and abolishing the worst breeders who run puppymills.

 

When it comes to humans, we're not certain what the Earth's carrying capacity is. We will kind of have to wait and see in order to find out. Obviously it depends a lot on lifestyle.

 

There is absolutely a push to adopt needy children. There are commercials on TV for it. There are organizations dedicated to it. For example:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/for-the-media/help-raise-public-awareness

http://www.davethomasfoundation.org/

Maybe it's not as big as it ought to be but I think there are other factors to consider, too.

 

First off, a lot of people say they have a strong biological urge to procreate. I admit I felt some of that but not as extreme as many people I've talked to. Adoption, to them, is simply not an option.

 

I'm an adoptive mom and I've always wanted to be an adoptive mom. But let me tell you, our adoption process was the most difficult thing I've ever done in my life. And we experienced a somewhat normal or average experience when adopting from fostercare. The difficulties involved are not just the things most people think of when they think about what hardships might be involved in adoption (time, money, lack of privacy, etc). For example, some of the areas where we experienced the most difficulty were these:

- getting support from family and friends (there is a cultural stigma against foster kids and adoption)

- legal issues (not with birth parents, with the system that wanted to race-match after we'd already bonded)

- maintaining marital harmony during difficult times

 

Also, adoption is strangely regulated. For example, in many areas there are guidelines but not laws. So ethically it's challenging to ensure you're doing the right thing as a prospective adoptive parent, particularly because you have an obvious conflict of interest. I found this extremely difficult because I have a tendency to overanalyze things and regret past decisions. But just to put this in perspective, each country and each state have their own adoption laws and guidelines that are always changing. Furthermore, each agency has it's guidelines/ policies. There are constantly stories or fraud, kidnapping, etc. in the adoption community. There are not so many that it's out of the question ethically, but there are enough to give pause, to make an ethical person do a lot of research to make sure they do it ethically. And the onus is quite literally on the adoptive parent. Because of how it works and who gets money and who doesnt, there's literally no one individual or any organization you can totally trust to make sure it's ethical.

 

When you have a biological child, it's simply taken for granted that you are the most suitable parent for that child. But in adoption that's not the case. You, everyone and their mother has an opinion about whether or not you're the right parent for this child. This is particularly true for any conspicuous adoption (transracial, gay, etc). People either idolize you or hate your... it's really very strange.

 

OK, then you'll also want to factor in the parenting differences between adoption and having a biological child. For starters, the vast majority of children who actually "need" adopting are NOT healthy newborn babies. There are long waiting lists for healthy newborn babies, particularly the non-black ones sad to say. Those children may need a home, but the reality is they have lots of options. They are not the children you're talking about in the top post. They are not "hungry and dying". Becoming a parent of a child who actually needs a home is sometimes deciding to accept some sort of risk like drug exposure, HIV, Down Syndrome. Or it's accepting a child who has been parentless for a while - in fostercare or an orphanage - their parent(s) are dead, incarcerated, incapacitated and these children often show some signs of trauma. They have been neglected or abused or simply lived a while without a healthy attachment to a caregiver. They might be a little behind intellectually or emotionally. Parenting them is rewarding but challenging.

 

If a would-be parent is choosing between a bio baby or an adoptive 8 year old, the would-be parent has to accept that if they choose the 8 year old then not only will they likely deal with some challenges from trying to heal the child's loss, the parents are also missing out on 8 years of the "traditional" parent experience. People who want to be parents don't usually want just some of that experience from about age 8 on for example, they usually want all of that experience.

 

Anyway, I just want to say that it's easy to look at adoption as this simple solution to problems like needy children and infertile people and human population growth and so forth, but the reality is that adoption is much more complicated.

 

edited to add paragraph breaks. original was done on a smart phone and didn't have breaks.

Redangie and VeganChick2202 like this.
ElaineV is offline  
#9 Old 12-25-2012, 11:12 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

If a would-be parent is choosing between a bio baby or an adoptive 8 year old, the would-be parent has to accept that if they choose the 8 year old then not only will they likely deal with some challenges from trying to heal the child's loss, the parents are also missing out on 8 years of the "traditional" parent experience. People who want to be parents don't usually want just some of that experience from about age 8 on for example, they usually want all of that experience.

Anyway, I just want to say that it's easy to look at adoption as this simple solution to problems like needy children and infertile people and human population growth and so forth, but the reality is that adoption is much more complicated.

What I don't like about this is it being about what the "parents" want. Why not first be about the kids? I don't care if I wouldn't have the full experience of the child from birth to adulthood I would just want to make a child who's life is traumatic, better. "Traditional" is always the easiest isn't it? (Just like consuming meat and going along with all the social norms). I know I won't take it and no one else should either. People should have realized by now that taking the road less traveled leads to some new insights and personal growth. Sure some of these adoptive children may be more difficult, but it's a challenge worth overcoming, for them. If people aren't suited to handle an adopted child then I don't feel like they should burden the world with more children that don't need to be here, more children who will likely end up like them, not willing to sacrifice personal comfort levels, not willing  to challenge themselves or put aside their own wants to help a child find a good home. 


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#10 Old 12-25-2012, 11:47 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4everaspirit View Post

What I don't like about this is it being about what the "parents" want. Why not first be about the kids? I don't care if I wouldn't have the full experience of the child from birth to adulthood I would just want to make a child who's life is traumatic, better. "Traditional" is always the easiest isn't it? (Just like consuming meat and going along with all the social norms). I know I won't take it and no one else should either. People should have realized by now that taking the road less traveled leads to some new insights and personal growth. Sure some of these adoptive children may be more difficult, but it's a challenge worth overcoming, for them. If people aren't suited to handle an adopted child then I don't feel like they should burden the world with more children that don't need to be here, more children who will likely end up like them, not willing to sacrifice personal comfort levels, not willing  to challenge themselves or put aside their own wants to help a child find a good home. 

Everything I wanted to say.

Also, even if someone is so delusional to say there is no overpopulation, the compassionate choice is still to take care of what is here and suffeeing before adding more.

And I don't think you can deny overpopulation of suffering kids or companion animals. Their populations are over the number of competant adults willing to battle social "traditions" and legal difficulties.

Its the saddest thing in the world that it has been so hard for you, Elaine. (and I say that after twol years that I have read your posts on the topic.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#11 Old 12-25-2012, 11:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850

From what I understand, there aren't plenty of babies waiting to be adopted and that's what most people want. If someone takes on an older child who's been in foster care or passed around forever, that kid may come with issues that not everyone is prepared to handle. Some might say shelter pets are "damaged" too (most are not, they were just dumped by a stupid human for a stupid reason) but a dog or cat with issues is MUCH easier to fix than a child with RAD or something. Plus I can understand wanting to have your own bio kid because things done or not done during pregnancy can affect the health of the child. I also know a couple who thought they were getting an infant only to have the birth mom back out 2 days after the birth. It happened to them not once but 3 times. I can't say I'd keep putting myself through that if I wanted a baby.

 

Also children aren't PTS for lack of homes. They are kept in the foster system until 18 and then kicked out to go it alone, which I find sad, but they are not being killed in large numbers every, single day. That's is my issue with buying pets instead of adopting.

Wolfie is offline  
#12 Old 12-26-2012, 12:09 AM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie View Post

From what I understand, there aren't plenty of babies waiting to be adopted and that's what most people want. If someone takes on an older child who's been in foster care or passed around forever, that kid may come with issues that not everyone is prepared to handle. Some might say shelter pets are "damaged" too (most are not, they were just dumped by a stupid human for a stupid reason) but a dog or cat with issues is MUCH easier to fix than a child with RAD or something. Plus I can understand wanting to have your own bio kid because things done or not done during pregnancy can affect the health of the child. I also know a couple who thought they were getting an infant only to have the birth mom back out 2 days after the birth. It happened to them not once but 3 times. I can't say I'd keep putting myself through that if I wanted a baby.

Also children aren't PTS for lack of homes. They are kept in the foster system until 18 and then kicked out to go it alone, which I find sad, but they are not being killed in large numbers every, single day. That's is my issue with buying pets instead of adopting.

Are you perhaps thinking in only Western world terms here?

This postdoesn't really strengthen or weaken my OP, other than bringing up further the suffering these kids go through - and maybe even suggesting they should not be bothered to be helped because of hoe difficult they may be. Which leads to them being dumped like last month's soy milk.


So then, does this say something even more sickening about our culture? That we'd rather push out a new one than "deal" with those who are existing and suffering?


Also, its a question for debate if its more cruel to dump a newly 18-year-old foster kid, than to humanely euthanize a companion animal who doesn't know the future suffering they would otherwise have. After a childhood of being passed around, and traumatized, the foster kid knows exactly how ****ed up their future will probably be.


Which leads me back to the main point that, as with not breeding future companion animals until a non-suffering solution is reached, we should equally no longer breed humans.


ESPECIALLY if we canr "handle" the problems some have. How can adding additional humans be remotely a socially good idea?


PS I'm writing this on my phone, appologies for typos.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#13 Old 12-26-2012, 04:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Which leads me back to the main point that, as with not breeding future companion animals until a non-suffering solution is reached, we should equally no longer breed humans.
ESPECIALLY if we canr "handle" the problems some have. How can adding additional humans be remotely a socially good idea?
This kind of thinking only seems to occur to people who do not strongly desire to have children. Often the vegans who say "if I have children I'll adopt" will never adopt.

And adoption is always only discussed in the context of so-called human overpopulation. It's always presented as an alternative. So even when they say they'd like adoption to be considered first they themselves don't behave that way.

If you actually want to promote adoption of children then you have to get involved. Criticizing people who want or have biological children does nothing for children who need homes.
ElaineV is offline  
#14 Old 12-26-2012, 06:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
drowsyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, UK
Posts: 237
It's an evolutionary thing. Children we adopt aren't actually related to us, so while it might be nice to raise adopted children, they're not actually "yours" - the desire to look after other people's children and not having any of your own is an evolutionary dead end.

If I post anything offensive, it's society's fault, not mine.
drowsyturtle is offline  
#15 Old 12-26-2012, 12:35 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

This kind of thinking only seems to occur to people who do not strongly desire to have children. Often the vegans who say "if I have children I'll adopt" will never adopt.
And adoption is always only discussed in the context of so-called human overpopulation. It's always presented as an alternative. So even when they say they'd like adoption to be considered first they themselves don't behave that way.
If you actually want to promote adoption of children then you have to get involved. Criticizing people who want or have biological children does nothing for children who need homes.

I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm criticizing something. An idea.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#16 Old 12-26-2012, 01:41 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by drowsyturtle View Post

It's an evolutionary thing. Children we adopt aren't actually related to us, so while it might be nice to raise adopted children, they're not actually "yours" - the desire to look after other people's children and not having any of your own is an evolutionary dead end.

Like I have asked, why is it all about us and "our" wants?  I'm going to downright say it and put forth that I think it's entirely selfish for someone to decide that they'd rather have their own baby than help a child who is already here because they don't want to "deal" with their past issues, they don't want to deal with having an an "evolutionary dead end" as you say. That child needs you and could care less about your personal comfort level in dealing with their issues. THEY are the ones who have been hurt the MOST.  So what if you gene pool ends?  Procreation is not solely the meaning of life. You can give life a meaning and helping others is definitely something that I feel gives my life the most meaning.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#17 Old 12-26-2012, 01:42 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post



So then, does this say something even more sickening about our culture? That we'd rather push out a new one than "deal" with those who are existing and suffering?
 

+1


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#18 Old 12-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post


Are you perhaps thinking in only Western world terms here?
This postdoesn't really strengthen or weaken my OP, other than bringing up further the suffering these kids go through - and maybe even suggesting they should not be bothered to be helped because of hoe difficult they may be. Which leads to them being dumped like last month's soy milk.
So then, does this say something even more sickening about our culture? That we'd rather push out a new one than "deal" with those who are existing and suffering?
Also, its a question for debate if its more cruel to dump a newly 18-year-old foster kid, than to humanely euthanize a companion animal who doesn't know the future suffering they would otherwise have. After a childhood of being passed around, and traumatized, the foster kid knows exactly how ****ed up their future will probably be.
Which leads me back to the main point that, as with not breeding future companion animals until a non-suffering solution is reached, we should equally no longer breed humans.
ESPECIALLY if we canr "handle" the problems some have. How can adding additional humans be remotely a socially good idea?
PS I'm writing this on my phone, appologies for typos.

Have you ever dealt with a child who has RAD? It's not for everyone. I'm not saying all kids for adoption have problems that severe, but I personally wouldn't be cut out to handle one that did. And you don't always know what problems you're getting until the adoption is final. I won't be breeding any humans myself, but if I did want a child, I'd try the old-fashioned route first. While you can't prevent everything, of course, I know enough about how to prevent FAS or RAD. Plus there's evidence that what the mother does or doesn't do during pregnancy can help reduce the risks of certain childhood cancers, etc.

 

But I probably don't really belong in this conversation. I don't want to raise any creature more complicated than a dog.

Wolfie is offline  
#19 Old 12-26-2012, 03:47 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie View Post

Have you ever dealt with a child who has RAD?

Five days a week I do, and it kills me the lengths people go through to act like they don't exist, or that its not a problem.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#20 Old 12-26-2012, 04:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850

Well I am glad they have someone like you on their side. :)

Wolfie is offline  
#21 Old 12-26-2012, 04:24 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
There are many reasons for people procreating/adopting. Years ago, one friend of mine adopted a newborn; he was her baby for five weeks; she was even partially lactating and breastfeeding, and the birth mother changed her mind.

My brother-in-law and his wife have adopted two lovely girls from China. Each adoption took years and cost tens of thousands of dollars (in 1990s dollars.) My other sister-in -law and her husband were in the process of adopting two children from Kazikstan, but at the last minute were only allowed to take the little boy. They had to leave the girl behind. Again, the costs and time required were huge. It isn't like all these poor children are lolling around awaiting rich people from the west to come adopt them.

I have assisted in newborn adoptions through my job, mostly open adoptions. Some were Europeans adopting from here in the states. My state is pretty strict on the amount of time birth mothers have to change their minds, and make it nearly impossible for gay couples to adopt, although we had a few somehow manage. We have had adoptive parents change their mind when the baby was unexpectedly born biracial, and also when the baby was born with a heart or other defect.

Nothing is perfect. Some will want to give birth, some will want to foster, some will want to adopt, some a combination, and some will choose to live child-free. All legitimate choices, imo. There are lots of kinds of families.
Redangie likes this.
LedBoots is offline  
#22 Old 12-26-2012, 04:42 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

There are many reasons for people procreating/adopting. Years ago, one friend of mine adopted a newborn; he was her baby for five weeks; she was even partially lactating and breastfeeding, and the birth mother changed her mind.
My brother-in-law and his wife have adopted two lovely girls from China. Each adoption took years and cost tens of thousands of dollars (in 1990s dollars.) My other sister-in -law and her husband were in the process of adopting two children from Kazikstan, but at the last minute were only allowed to take the little boy. They had to leave the girl behind. Again, the costs and time required were huge. It isn't like all these poor children are lolling around awaiting rich people from the west to come adopt them.
I have assisted in newborn adoptions through my job, mostly open adoptions. Some were Europeans adopting from here in the states. My state is pretty strict on the amount of time birth mothers have to change their minds, and make it nearly impossible for gay couples to adopt, although we had a few somehow manage. We have had adoptive parents change their mind when the baby was unexpectedly born biracial, and also when the baby was born with a heart or other defect.
Nothing is perfect. Some will want to give birth, some will want to foster, some will want to adopt, some a combination, and some will choose to live child-free. All legitimate choices, imo. There are lots of kinds of families.

This isn't about whether it's legitimate. This is about why people want others to "adopt" adopt adopt, pets, but less emphasis is placed on adopting children that are already here and need a good home. I think it's highly selfish for anyone to know the alternative, but yet still choose to bring another child into this world. To me that's like smacking all of those beautiful children that are already here and need a good home in the face. They'd rather not "deal" with their mess. I find it disgusting.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#23 Old 12-26-2012, 04:44 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

I don’t think it is possible to eliminate wants. I think we may simply have different wants from people who act differently. For example I may say it is your want to adopt rather than have your own children due to concern for humans that are already here. But a relevant point may be: do we choose our wants or are we stuck with them?

For example you may be happy just to adopt but someone else may be very unhappy unless they have their own children (and there may be nothing to do about how you feel). You may think they are selfish for not caring enough about existing people. I don’t know what you do but if you are like just about everyone else there is more you can give to charity than you actually do. For example one can eat less, buy less expensive clothes, save less, live in a cheaper place, not have cable and internet, all in order to donate (more) money to charity. But I take it we all care about our own happiness rather than just worrying about what is good for others. So someone who is more charitable than we are can think we are being selfish. We all have our limits in charity. People feel differently about what is important and meaningful to them.

I guess this is an attempt to explain how it works rather than how it should be.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4everaspirit View Post

Like I have asked, why is it all about us and "our" wants?  I'm going to downright say it and put forth that I think it's entirely selfish for someone to decide that they'd rather have their own baby than help a child who is already here because they don't want to "deal" with their past issues, they don't want to deal with having an an "evolutionary dead end" as you say. That child needs you and could care less about your personal comfort level in dealing with their issues. THEY are the ones who have been hurt the MOST.  So what if you gene pool ends?  Procreation is not solely the meaning of life. You can give life a meaning and helping others is definitely something that I feel gives my life the most meaning.

Cato is offline  
#24 Old 12-26-2012, 05:11 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post

I don’t think it is possible to eliminate wants. I think we may simply have different wants from people who act differently. For example I may say it is your want to adopt rather than have your own children due to concern for humans that are already here. But a relevant point may be: do we choose our wants or are we stuck with them?

For example you may be happy just to adopt but someone else may be very unhappy unless they have their own children (and there may be nothing to do about how you feel). You may think they are selfish for not caring enough about existing people. I don’t know what you do but if you are like just about everyone else there is more you can give to charity than you actually do. For example one can eat less, buy less expensive clothes, save less, live in a cheaper place, not have cable and internet, all in order to donate (more) money to charity. But I take it we all care about our own happiness rather than just worrying about what is good for others. So someone who is more charitable than we are can think we are being selfish. We all have our limits in charity. People feel differently about what is important and meaningful to them.

I guess this is an attempt to explain how it works rather than how it should be.

 

I choose my wants for a greater good. I prefer not to be so selfish when doing things.

 

I understand what you are saying but I hope you realize that I shop at goodwill, buy second hand stuff, I don't want to live in a huge house, I  tell people to donate to vegan outreac in my name as gifts to me, and only plan to adopt. I try to live simply, though still comfortable. I do think someone who just "wants" to have their own children is selfish. I truly feel that it is when there are plenty of kids that need you and you decide to just turn a blind eye to them for what "YOU'D prefer. It's always about "me me me." for most people. That's just selfish and kind of makes me sick, because while that person is so well off and "happy" with their own happy children who didn't need to be here in the first place, another kid doesn't have a mom to love them. I don't expect people to adopt a million children (yes we can all do more and what not), but at least DO SOMETHING.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#25 Old 12-26-2012, 05:14 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4everaspirit View Post

This isn't about whether it's legitimate. This is about why people want others to "adopt" adopt adopt, pets, but less emphasis is placed on adopting children that are already here and need a good home. I think it's highly selfish for anyone to know the alternative, but yet still choose to bring another child into this world. To me that's like smacking all of those beautiful children that are already here and need a good home in the face. They'd rather not "deal" with their mess. I find it disgusting.

I already explained why adopting a pet who has been around the block is a bit simpler than adopting an older child who has psychological problems. While I feel bad that someone did that to these kids, not everyone is cut out to "deal" with a child who will stab you and burn the house down while you sleep. Of course not all older kids in foster care are like that by any means but what if you get one that is? Look at the crap that poor woman got who sent her adopted child back to Russia when it turned out she and the rest of her family weren't safe around him.

 

I had friends who were going to attempt to adopt a 12-year-old who had been in and out of foster care for a while. They had to send the child back before she hurt their bio child.

 

And also everything ledboots said. It's not as easy as it sounds to adopt.

Wolfie is offline  
#26 Old 12-26-2012, 05:16 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
We have the power to rise above "want" for a better option. I want a nonvegan monte christo sammich, but I know that it is cruel and wrong, so I choose what is right over what I may selfishly want.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#27 Old 12-26-2012, 05:21 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

We have the power to rise above "want" for a better option. I want a nonvegan monte christo sammich, but I know that it is cruel and wrong, so I choose what is right over what I may selfishly want.

 

You say things more simply and better than I can. Thanks...haha.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#28 Old 12-26-2012, 05:22 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie View Post

I already explained why adopting a pet who has been around the block is a bit simpler than adopting an older child who has psychological problems. While I feel bad that someone did that to these kids, not everyone is cut out to "deal" with a child who will stab you and burn the house down while you sleep. Of course not all older kids in foster care are like that by any means but what if you get one that is? Look at the crap that poor woman got who sent her adopted child back to Russia when it turned out she and the rest of her family weren't safe around him.

 

I had friends who were going to attempt to adopt a 12-year-old who had been in and out of foster care for a while. They had to send her back before she hurt their bio child.

 

And also everything ledboots said. It's not as easy as it sounds to adopt.

 

At least the lady attempted and I think that is what counts. If a child is seriously a threat and there is nothing you can do (though I always feel like there is somethinig people haven't tried that they an do), than you have to protect yourself. That's understandable.

 

I also know it's not easy to adopt. (I know there is still a lot of discrimination towards gay couples...which is sad.) But neither is being vegan for most people. It's not just a "breeze." But I'd still prefer to be vegan than follow a traditional, "easy" lifestyle I disagree with.


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#29 Old 12-26-2012, 05:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vegan cyberpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Probably some airport
Posts: 1,280

Human overpopulation is rather pushing most people towards malthusianism than towards anything else.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
https://
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
https://www.autistici.org/en/index.html  https://riseup.net/en

https://pay.reddit.com/r/privacy/wiki/index

vegan cyberpunk is offline  
#30 Old 12-26-2012, 05:35 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegan cyberpunk View Post

Human overpopulation is rather pushing most people towards malthusianism than towards anything else.

Thomad Malthus has been repeatedly proven wrong.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off