Asklemmy

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.