Why don't people adopt vs having kids.

Post Reply New Topic

The cost to raise the average child to adulthood in north america is estimated to excede a million dollars! The D.I.N.Ks get to spend that on themselves - who's selfish?

If you really believe that your existance is nothing more than a meaningless selfish act - you should kill yourself to make way for others who may be more appreciative.

The same goes for the overpopulation arguments - if you really want change - it has to begin with you!

Why so defensive ninszot? It's completely inappropriate to suggest people should kill themselves - even if you do it jokingly or to prove your point.

I think both choices can be extremely selfish, same way as one choice doesn't invalidate the other - some take this way too personally.

Not defensive but - I think the modern attitude toward families is both silly and short sited. I find the overpopulation argument particularily faulted - the people raising the next generation of great thinkers are the people who will bring answers to the world's problems - we can't go back to living in tribes with 12 million people on the planet, we have done too much damage already, there's no going back we need to look to science and inovation, we need more thinkers and more people working to solve these problems - we may need to support 3X the current world population inorder to have the man power to clean up the mess we've created - it's just the way it is. The people who say stop breeding! Are not helping, they are just suggesting we commit suicide as a spiecies. And yeah if that's what they believe then don't take it out on kids and families - lead by example

Further, I wholey support teen pregnancy - that is physiologically the best time to be having healthy babies. The "responsible" ones that wait until after 40 have fewer healthy babies. I think we need to support young families not run on about how only the stupid ones are breeding. Teen moms should be considered revered and PAYED for the important job they are doing, not criticized and made to live in poverty on welfare. Just my opinion . . . maybe not popular but from a biology perspective, perhaps more responsible.

I think alot of people aren't up for the task and find it easier to parrot faulted 1980's morality then to actually think about what they are saying and in the end it just comes off as ignorance and hate.

I would bump that up to early 20's. Fertility is just as high but it allows for both highschool (and college, if wanted) degrees and some adult perspective. I can only see this being socially possible if good daycare gets more ubiquitous and affordable. So many women wait because they want to be established enough in their careers that they can afford good daycare, which is very expensive. I wish I had had my daughter when I was somewhat younger.

No, but we CAN bring the human population down to a more manageable level. That's hardly "suicide."



It does not follow that if we keep increasing increase the population, we will breed "great thinkers." It's just as likely that we will countinue to breed stupid people. If we want more scientists, it makes better sense to improve education in these areas, not increase the number of children and then sit back and hope they simply become "great thinkers." And where are you getting the figure that we're going to need 3X our current population to clean up our current "mess?"

It also does not follow that "science and technology" will fix the planet. That's merely an assumption. There are no gaurantees that humanity can ever achieve independence from our biosphere. That's just a hopeful ideal. Otherwise, we're eventually going to run out of oil, arable land, and drinkable water, which will be followed by war, disease and famine while humans kill each other over dwindling resources.



Suggesting we keep the human population at manageable levels is not "suicide." And you cannot "take it out" on children who do not exist yet.



If these teenagers are mature and responsible enough to take care of the children they create, then yes. However, in Western societies, we have prolonged periods of childhood and irresponsibility where children are encouraged to remain ignorant as long as possible. Most of these girls and boys don't even have financial independence from their parents yet, let alone the means to pay for their own children.

Beyond that, I have little interest in paying brood mares to spew children. I feel no particular obligation to pay for other people's children beyond basic necessities, and then only when the parents have fallen on hard times.

Yes, we do get physically bullied.

I would like muscle mass in order to prevent people from physically bullying me and for many, many other reasons.

Clear enough?

Yes, let's all ignore what the grown-ups have been saying about safe sex and forget aiming higher than being a mommy. By God, why even consider doing something productive for the community when you can just pump out babies and get paid for it?

For the record, teen moms aren't "made to live in poverty on welfare." The teen moms who live in poverty were probably living in poverty to begin with. The middle/upper-class teen moms, on the other hand, are pretty content living in the house with their parents babysitting the new baby while they themselves go off partying somewhere.



No, you were wrong. Even if the eggs of a 25-year-old are less "healthy" than the eggs of a 15-year-old, the difference isn't significant for it to matter at all. Now let's forget the biological perspective and picture a normal 15-year-old who, unlike us, actually has a healthy social life and likes to go out on weekends. Do you REALLY think it's socially responsible to let her get pregnant? No, I do not think so.



These are not the responsible ones. These are the dumb ones. Or the ones who change their mind about (not) wanting their own kids when it's a little too late. The responsible ones usually wait until they have stable income and/or are in stable relationship (which normally happen in their mid-20s, if things go according to the plan), but they don't go overboard and purposely postpone pregnancy until they're 40. I mean, who does that?

1) you're not talking about broodmares, you're talking about children and families.
Women aren't animals and shouldn't be "animalized" your thinking is both sexist and disturbing.

2) most of us were educated on public tax money, walk on sidwalks built by collective initiative and should recognise that we are not islands - the more we invest in tommorrows children the more great thinkers we get to solve the world's problems . . . and yes have more children you will get more great thinkers (along with the others) - have no children you get no great thinkers.

3) Who's selfish? the one who feels no obligation to the children of tommorrow and views women as animals? or the ones willing to make the sacrafices to raise a young mind in this world?

This is why we don't get a choice about paying into the National Child Benifit Tax, and the Universal Child Benifit Credit . . . it's the right thing to do for eachother - if you are even making eneugh to pay any taxes (most aspies don't work but are recipients of public tax dollars). - did you actually pay any taxes last year?

Last edited by ninszot on 05 Nov 2010, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It has seemed like to me more people are having their first kids in their forties. Is it becoming for common?

Hmmm . . . raise the generation of tommorrow, be a role model . . . or work at TacoBell - I think the Teen mom contributes more to the community



uh -huh . . . go party on the weekend or commit 20 years to raising a the next generation - who's selfish???

The current trend to wait untill into the 30's or 40's is becoming more and more the norm.
You get a window between 15-17 and 25-27 when you are most likly to produce healthy children.

So yeah you want to start when you are 15 so you can get 2-3 in before you are risking neuro tube defects and what not . . . this is what we gotta do if we want to be producing great minds ~shrug~

By suggesting we should pay women to do nothing but sit home and spew children, your much closer to treating women as brood mares than I am.



Please demonstrate that producing more children will automatically produce "great thinkers."

If you want "great thinkers," we need better care and education for children. Simply adding more children will not improve the care children receive.



I'm more than willing to pay for children's basic necessities. I've already stated that. However, I feel no obligation to pay women to do nothing but sit at home and have children. IMHO, that's a waste of resources.



Yes, I did pay taxes last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.

I'm not well-acquainted with that many 40-something-year-olds, but the people I know who look that age usually already have school-aged kids by then. But according to CDC...

"In 2000 the average American woman having her first baby was almost 25 years old. In 1970 the average age was 21.4 years for a first birth, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released today."

...and I really don't think the number would have changed that much over the course of 10 years. The most common age to have kids is still in the 20s.



Not only would your proposal to pay teen girls to get pregnant set back the feminist movement by 60 years, but a mother who doesn't do much other than sitting around their house and being near their kids will probably (1) suffer from major depression, and (2) be incapable of raising kids (especially daughters) worth bragging about.

Working at TacoBell could at least teach them responsibility and some interpersonal skills--and possibly motivate them to work harder.



Wait. What?



Again, the mean age for a woman to get pregnant is still in the 20s, and you can still have "healthy" babies up till in your early 30s. Serious.

I don't think people in their early 20s are mature enough to have babies, which is why I really have no problem with this "window" thing you believe to exist. Kids this age usually still have their own issues to take care of, and adding a baby into the equation would only complicate their lives. Before anyone consider having a kid, they should make sure they themselves don't have any random hang-ups that might interfere their ability to raise their kid. While I'm sure their kids would be able to learn to live with their parents' crap if they have to, it is in my personal beliefs that good parents are the kind of grown-ups that kids can turn to in times of trouble, not the ones they run the hell away from.



Uh, no. I'm willing to bet my life that a 15-year-old who willingly becomes a parent, for reasons unrelated to genetics, has a really tiny chance of producing great minds.

I never said any such thing (particularily the bit about spewing)
You seem to have a poor undertanding of both the birth process, and what is required to raise a child. Parents get little opportunity to sit at home doing nothing - they are usually lacking sleep and on the go . . . clearly you have no experience with this first hand.

Like I said no children = no great thinkers



which is why your tax dollars help support families

weather you like it or not

You seem to assume stay at home dads don't exist or perhaps you think it is women who sit around doing nothing while the stay at home dads do all the work raising the children . . . either way you are somewhat misguided in your thinking.

back to adoption options . . . Does anyone know of an agency that will adopt kids for less than $10000 (Canada)?

I never said "parents do nothing." I said that teenaged girls shouldn't be paid to sit at home and raise children.



Please demonstrate that increasing the number of children will increase the number of "great thinkers." Increasing the number of children does not gaurantee any of them will be "great thinkers." MORE children does not necessarily equal MORE "great thinkers." Nor does decreasing the number of children gaurantee that the number of "great minds" will decrease. A child's mind is more likely to be affected by good care and education. There will be more "great thinkers" in a small population with good care than there will be in a large population with poor care.

And we can curb overpopulation by bringing the number of humans down to a level our biosphere can sustain. It does not require the elimination of the entire human race, or "having no children." That's a strawman.



I've already stated that I don't have a problem supporting basic necessities for those in need. Then I repeated it.



I said nothing at all about "stay-at-home dads." You claimed mothers should be paid to stay at home and raise children. I responded to that statement. I said women, teenagers or otherwise, should not be paid to sit at home and raise children.

In such a situation where women are paid to sit and home and have children, must we also pay fathers to stay at home with their children, or must fathers still go to work? If fathers and mothers are paid to sit at home with their children, will the burden of running society fall solely on the shoulders of the childless? "Paying" mothers for being mothers is fraught with too many problems.

anyways . . . (tired of fielding the hate) - does anybody know of an agency that will adopt for less than $10 000?