this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2022
30 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43394 readers
1414 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also if you want to adopt you need a very square life where I live. You need proper jobs, a lot of money to show them, be married etc. Not saying this is bad, it's probably best for the adopted children, but I don't have many of these things.
Nah, for $50,000 you can buy an African child. Takes about a year or so. It's not human trafficking because it's good and wholesome.
It can be. You just have to label it correctly. Call it "international adoption" and the money "adoption fees", and it's all good.
I get what he's trying to say here; he's being ironic about it, as some people gullibly adopt from immoral sources such as african warlords. It is child trafficking but, since it is being "whitewashed" and not labeled as such, it becomes somehow acceptable in the public eye.
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.
Absolutely. Quite honestly, adopting from another country had never crossed my mind, since I grew up with so many orphans. I was surprised that some people immediately jumped to that conclusion
Yeah, I've read that comment. I don't agree with what he said in general but it's undeniable that there are plenty of scams to lure rich people, typically americans, to poor countries under the guise of adopting children from underfunded orphanages when in fact there are far grimmer ulterior motives behind them.