Asklemmy

43811 readers

953 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Is anyone childfree? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by Amicchan@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I try to be. Children would be exhausting to parent in the current era. Humanity's future is gloom too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DPUGT2@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] H4rdStyl3z@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 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.

[–] OhScee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

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