So as is appropriate, I am starting a discussion rather than posting comments. I was going to go back and look at the original comment that started all the controversy but it has mysteriously disappeared. I would be curious to know if the author is the one who deleted it. It seems to me that he was not treated with respect from the beginning.

Maybe it is unpopular, but I thought he made valid points. I believe the first was a question about why have biological children rather than adopt. The second was concerning respect for children and treating them like people rather than inferior people. I apologize if my summary is inaccurate as the original post disappeared.

My husband and I chose to have two children of our own rather than adopt. I admit that we made that decision for selfish reasons, but my justification is that we are just replacing ourselves. Which is weak, I admit. I would, however, be open to adoption should I want any more children or perhaps under the right unforeseen circumstances.

I think he made several other good points regarding parenting. I do agree that children can learn to control their emotional reactions. After all, how do adults learn it? Hopefully they begin learning it from their parents when they are toddlers.

Views: 23

Replies to This Discussion

undeserved respect. if you expect me to dance around an issue, you're not being rational. there is no way to phrase that question that you would not take offence to.

People are giving you honest well thought out reasons as to why your initial post was received so badly. A gracious person accepts that and moves on.

 

And please STOP telling people that they are not being rational. It's condescending and unwarranted.

this is how "rationalists" deal with facts, is it?

Why do rational people choose to have biological babies rather than adopt? 

 

If you are a thinking person and your only consideration is world population and resources (and all that goes along with that) then it seems not only irrational, but down right irresponsible to give birth to your own children. However, realistically it is very difficult to adopt, very costly, and very time intensive. Why do people adopt infants from overseas rather than the many children in the U.S. that would love to be adopted? Even adoption decisions can be irrational as couples prefer to have an infant over an older child. Although deserving of being adopted or being placed in a good home, older children often have issues that many would be parents are simply not equipped to deal with. Like being in love, having children is largely an emotional roller coaster. It is almost by definition illogical and irrational with occasional moments of lucidity. 

 

For me personally, I'll be honest and say adoption was never even once an option that was considered. 

i fail to see how that justifies anything. comparing it to "being in love" doesn't help anything, as i don't think that impulse shoulfd be followed unthinkingly either.

 

how is it irrational to adopt an infant? it's the obvious rational choice. overseas adoption makes perfect sense. i'm really not following you at all here.

I was not trying to justify anything, merely explain. You are correct, impulses should not be followed unthinkingly. But when you get down to it, many of our choices are emotional. Even the ones that we agonize over often come down to an emotional reason. 

 

Why is it rational to go to great lengths to adopt an infant overseas rather than adopt an older child in need in your own community?

because nationalism is stupid?

Nationalism has got nothing to do with it. 

 

I'll simplify it.

Why is it rational to want an infant over an older child? 

because the goal here is to create a generation of responsible, rational people. the habits such a person needs to learn must be learned early, from day one and consistently.

if, on the other hand, that is not a person's goal, all they'd really be interested in is skipping the diaper stage.

This is actually an excellent point. If you want to raise a child in any particular way, no matter what way that is, it is imperative to begin at infancy. By the time a child is older they have already learned damaging lessons that are difficult if not impossible to unlearn. That is not at all to say that older children should not be adopted. Just a rational reason why a person might choose an infant.

ideally, i'd like to see orphanages lying abandoned and every child with someone who cares for them and helps them explore their potential to the fullest. but we're talking reality here.

 

if a person had the means to raise more than one child (something overpopulation actually prevents), then it might make sense to adopt an older child later on, once the parent has the benefit of experience, and when there are also siblings to provide support. but it's still risky. i would admire anyone who could be successful at it. but as i said, a person is ultimately responsible for their own life, even a child, and with certain habits and choices, even the best parenting can be totally futile, and with other choices, even the worst parenting can't stop them from flourishing. the point is to guide these choices by teaching critical thinking and introspection early in life, including by example. not that it will always go perfectly or that no other problems will arise, but you can only do your best

you infer those things. that's your problem.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Future replied to scott martins's discussion IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?
1 minute ago
Vangelis replied to Vangelis's discussion Declaration of Atheism
1 minute ago
Freethinker31 posted a discussion
6 minutes ago
Patricia replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Men at risk of Prostate Cancer could in future be identified by Gene Tests in the group Cancer
11 minutes ago
Dr. Terence Meaden replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Men at risk of Prostate Cancer could in future be identified by Gene Tests in the group Cancer
15 minutes ago
Patricia replied to Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Men at risk of Prostate Cancer could in future be identified by Gene Tests in the group Cancer
23 minutes ago
Steph S. liked Dr. Terence Meaden's discussion Men at risk of Prostate Cancer could in future be identified by Gene Tests
25 minutes ago
Steph S. replied to Sentient Biped's discussion What will happen if Scotland Succeeds from the UK?
25 minutes ago
Steph S. liked Sentient Biped's discussion What will happen if Scotland Succeeds from the UK?
26 minutes ago
Dr. Terence Meaden added a discussion to the group Cancer
31 minutes ago
Bertold Brautigan posted a photo
31 minutes ago
Bertold Brautigan replied to Sentient Biped's discussion Vile hate monger Michelle Bachmann: Gays want to legalize pederasty. in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
34 minutes ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service