I do want a biological child or two, but I do also agree with prioritizing adoption. I plan to adopt/foster several children after my biological children grow up. Personally, I feel that’s a bit more ethical, as I’d like to establish my parental skills with the benefits of raising from birth and biological similarity, before I presume to handle the additional complexities of a child with a past.
Comment on "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" aren't actually opposite positions
asdfranger@lemmynsfw.com 21 hours agoI agree, bringing new people into sentience is not morally wrong at all, living is pretty cool.
I think people should prioritize adoption over birth. Supporting someone who was abandoned is way better than giving birth, and also avoids the physical and psychological pain/trauma of giving birth. That’s the one antinatalist point I agree with.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
Allero@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
In terms of ethics, adopting is beautiful. But there’s that one ugly factor that comes to make it so much worse: demographics.
If people come to adopt children instead of having their own, we won’t have enough new people to drive the economy (I know, I know, economists suck, but they’re right on that one). No one will be there to produce goods and services for ageing population falling out of workforce.
Children that aren’t going to get adopted will still be alive and join the ranks of adults. Children that weren’t born will not.
I wish there could be a good way to have both, though.
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
Same, I used to participate in antinatalist forums because I strongly believe that it’s selfish to bring new life into the world when you could instead love one of the children already in need of a home. But I don’t agree with the extreme antinatalist stance that nobody should be born ever. I think if you get pregnant and you want kids, by all means, keep it. Antinatalists are extremely cynical people who think life isn’t worth living at all.