There are no moral sources. Those who would adopt morally would be compelled to adopt children from their own family first… who better to not let an orphan forget their parents than someone who also loved and knew those parents?
And if there were no family, then friends of those parents for the same reason.
And if no friends, then that community… except today, there aren’t really any communities left. Just people who live near each other as accidents of geography.
And if none in the community, then at least someone from that culture. So that the child might grow up knowing his or her own language and songs and whatnot. But western culture isn’t a culture so much as the absence of one, a void, and so it can’t imagine that anything like that’s important.
But none of these rules allow hipsters who live in California but are too eco-conscious of their carbon footprint to want to “bring another child into this world” but want to raise a child to do so. So these rules are bad. And that’s why adopting African children is good and moral. Because they want to, they have the money to do it, and that warlord uses a cutout so that the adoption has the appearance of being above-board.
Those who would adopt morally would be compelled to adopt children from their own family first… who better to not let an orphan forget their parents than someone who also loved and knew those parents?
And if there were no family, then friends of those parents for the same reason.
I… agree with you? You’re making a strawman out of me in this argument. I never said I advocated for adopting from Africa before adopting from your own family or circle of friends. Heck, if I do decide to adopt in the future, that’s the route I’d try to take first. Not that it’s a big desire of mine, but that’s what I’d choose to do.
You’re making a strawman out of me in this argument.
We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.
I apologize if this makes it seem I’m hostile to you.
But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.
And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.
We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your argument.
But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.
And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.
I somewhat agree, in the sense that, from a moral perspective, if you’re adopting just to satisfy a desire, without any good intention to help the child being adopted, you’re just as evil as if you’ve had a biological child for that same reason. That might be where you disagree with me though.
I don’t think people in this thread are advocating for adoption from a strictly selfish point of view, they are merely acknowledging that, in the face of wanting a child to take care of, adopting a child who was neglected seems like a more morally sound choice than having a biological child, in those circumstances.
There are no moral sources. Those who would adopt morally would be compelled to adopt children from their own family first… who better to not let an orphan forget their parents than someone who also loved and knew those parents?
And if there were no family, then friends of those parents for the same reason.
And if no friends, then that community… except today, there aren’t really any communities left. Just people who live near each other as accidents of geography.
And if none in the community, then at least someone from that culture. So that the child might grow up knowing his or her own language and songs and whatnot. But western culture isn’t a culture so much as the absence of one, a void, and so it can’t imagine that anything like that’s important.
But none of these rules allow hipsters who live in California but are too eco-conscious of their carbon footprint to want to “bring another child into this world” but want to raise a child to do so. So these rules are bad. And that’s why adopting African children is good and moral. Because they want to, they have the money to do it, and that warlord uses a cutout so that the adoption has the appearance of being above-board.
I… agree with you? You’re making a strawman out of me in this argument. I never said I advocated for adopting from Africa before adopting from your own family or circle of friends. Heck, if I do decide to adopt in the future, that’s the route I’d try to take first. Not that it’s a big desire of mine, but that’s what I’d choose to do.
We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.
I apologize if this makes it seem I’m hostile to you.
But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.
And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your argument.
I somewhat agree, in the sense that, from a moral perspective, if you’re adopting just to satisfy a desire, without any good intention to help the child being adopted, you’re just as evil as if you’ve had a biological child for that same reason. That might be where you disagree with me though.
I don’t think people in this thread are advocating for adoption from a strictly selfish point of view, they are merely acknowledging that, in the face of wanting a child to take care of, adopting a child who was neglected seems like a more morally sound choice than having a biological child, in those circumstances.
deleted by creator