The problem with Facebook is you see the comments, sometimes pictures, of people you don't know because someone you know makes a comment or gets tagged. There are people I would choose not to befriend or even hang out with because I disagree with their basic set of beliefs. I hate seeing their stuff on my timeline.
Like this girl who made this comment on a post someone I know made:
this article's obvious bias makes me angry. I think having children is the selfish choice. if you're so bent on raising someone, there are plenty of kids that need adopting. it's more difficult, but you aren't contributing to overpopulation and, most likely, if you choose to adopt you are of the more educated sect, and so you're doing some damage-free smart-person formation for the world. it's no surprise reports always tote the fact that successful people in big cities have less children - they're usually more educated, and know better.
HER "obvious bias makes me angry." Her comment is a rant without any thought. She makes a good first impression, but let's break it down.
having children is selfish
people who want children should adopt
people who choose to adopt are more educated
people who choose to adopt are doing damage-free formation
successful people in big cities have less children because they're more educated and know better
I, along with every person who's ever studied humanity, know that having children is human nature. The desire to have biological children is part of the human nature to procreate, to leave a legacy, to grow, to belong, to give care, to continue the human race, and so on and on and on. Having children is NOT the selfish choice. Being irresponsible with your partner is the selfish choice.
If you really don't want to have children, don't have sex. Unless she ties her tubes or he gets snipped, abstinence is the only sure way you won't have children. But people are irresponsible. Not only do they participate in sex, they're not always careful. Who do you think are responsible for the children in need of adoption??? There are kids who gets put in the system because of accidents that left them orphaned. But most of those kids were taken from unfit or broken homes. Yes, not everyone should become a parent because there are people who are just unfit parents. But do you punish good, honest, and even highly educated people who want to have biological children because of the actions of those unfit parents?
Oh wait...she thinks that people who choose adoption are more educated. Therefore, anyone who wants biological children are dumber. So basically, if a couple who choose to have biological children have multiple doctorate degrees, high paying jobs, charity foundations they started, or even Nobel peace prizes, they are still dumber than the couple who choose to adopt. Really? Or let's get real. I had an extremely intelligent professor who have biological children. I also know adoptive parents who have average jobs and have only reached four year college degrees. Clearly, the university professor is more educated and he did not choose adoption.
Just because you choose to adopt doesn't mean you're more educated. It means you have the heart and character for it.
Not everyone has the heart or the character to be adoptive parents. Therefore, you can't just make a sweeping declaration that everyone who wants to raise a child should adopt. Making those people adopt instead of having biological children ENDANGERS THE ADOPTED CHILD. Think about it. What if it was a law that every couple who wants a biological child must adopt a child? Even if they're the most loving parents in the world, if they don't have the heart or character for adoption, there will always be something lacking. There is something they cannot give to the adopted child. And so therefore, they are not doing "damage-free" formation.
And not every adoptive parent is doing damage-free formation. You can't generalize that because life happens. Anything can happen at any moment, and people change.
And the psychological argument. "Reports always totes" that successful people in big cities have less children. Why? She thinks it's because they're more educated and know better. Wow. Where to begin with that. In the business world, how does a person become successful? Work hard, right? Define working hard? Hitting the pavement. Putting in more hours than required. Dedicating yourself to the job. If you're so dedicated to your job, where do you find the time to have children? You don't. So do you end up with more or less children? LESS. How much home space do you have in a big city? A small house, maybe? More like an apartment. Perhaps a condo. How many people can comfortably live in a small space? Two or three? Four if you're lucky, though keep in mind that it's a big city. Everything costs more. So a couple who are successful because they're dedicated to their demanding jobs live in the big city and can only have the time for how many children? More or less? LESS. It's not because they're more educated and know better. It's because of the circumstances of their life! Psych 101. Think.
I am all for adoption. I actually want to adopt someday. But I disagree that people who want biological children should adopt, or are less educated than people who choose to adopt. Not everyone is cut out to be adoptive parents. Not everyone has the heart or the character. Adoption is tough. Not just because it's expensive or because of the red tape, but because of many issues that have to be addressed with everyone involved.
Argue for adoption all you want. I will agree with you. But argue against people who want biological children, then you're no better than the biased article that made you rant in the first place. If you're so angry about overpopulation and the amount of kids who need to be adopted, then rant against the irresponsible people who put those kids in dangerous situations that landed them in a messed up system.