A second ago, I picked and commented thinking you said, "Abortion" XD
Wow, I'm dumb.

But now that I know,
I am 100% for adoption.
Each child in our world deserves a great chance of a happy, loving childhood each one of us has lived. No child out in the world deserves abandonment, abuse, starvation, poverty, neglect etc. Children have done nothing to not deserve what they need the most....the love of a family.

I agree 100% with you sapherequeen. :)

Who would be against it? What would be the reasoning? There are so many kids out there that need homes. I'd prefer that more people adopted rather than take fertility pills or use artificial insemination. We don't need more children...we need parents to take care of the ones already here.

I'm with fanfly. Why would anyone be against it?

^Not debating, just suggesting possible reasons that come to mind;

Some parents may prefer their own biological children, or relatives. One may think that a biological child doesn't bring as much joy as an adopted one, or will actually carry down the bloodline or family name more successfully as an adoptive child.

Other reasons may be that the birth mother doesn't always want to choose adoption. She may have wanted to keep her child, but was unable to do so due to poor environmental conditions or pressure from others. People may see this as abusing the mother's rights and therefore would be against adoption for these reasons.

I don't really know why I'm saying this, I guess it's for something to do. XD

Thanks for playing devil's advocate, sapherequeen! I can see how those reasons might mean something to potential parents but to me they sound so weak.

I know there are a lot of people out there though that do prefer their own biological children as opposed to adoption...thus the fertility pills and artificial insemination for those who have difficulty conceiving naturally. I just wish those people would open their hearts and minds a little more to the idea of adoption. To me, it just seems selfish to go to such lengths and spend that money in order to bring another child into the world, when there are so many kids out there who don't have anyone and could use their help.

I think the bigger debate here is exactly what Fanfly just mentioned. If you can't have children naturally, for whatever reason, be you gay, have narrow hips, or have bad eggs/sperm, is it morally responsible to artificially create a child with your own DNA, when there are so many unwanted children out there?

I have never heard of anyone being against adoption. Even people who choose the science path have nothing against adoption. That would be like having something against volunteering in your community or building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Even if you don't do it, you can't argue that it's NOT a beautiful, generous thing that inevitably helps society as a whole.

As for the argument I mentioned above, which I believe is much more controversial, I have nothing against people who go the less orthodox routes to conceive children. It's in our most basic nature to want to preserve our gene pool. Our species would die without that urge. I think everyone has the right to pursue all their options for obtaining a child, be it adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate parents.

I've thought about this a lot. I have a syndrome which puts me at a higher risk for infertility than other women. Facing the fact that I might not be able to have my own children is a little bit heartbreaking for me. I have wanted to adopt for a long time as well - but why not do both? If I can't get pregnant myself, I might pursue other options science has provided. I'll also, most likely, adopt a child.

But how is a barren couple wanting to have their own biological child any more selfish than fertile couples who want the same thing? The only difference is, one easily can and one cannot do so naturally.

I agree, Cinders, that it's not wrong to want to have a biological child of your own. But the way I see it, if you can't conceive naturally, why spend money trying to change that when you can spend that money on adoption instead? Someone who can conceive naturally isn't faced with that choice. So I guess that's why I view it as more selfish when someone chooses to exert so much effort and money on themselves, rather than on a child who needs a home. Because the effort to have a biological child of your own, although understandable, is something you're doing for yourself. Not the child. Personally, I wish more people who can conceive naturally would still consider adoption before deciding to get pregnant.

I know people at my school who are against adoption. They just think that if you have a child, keep it, don't put it up for adoption. :|

They're spending money on what fertile parents do effortlessly (well, not EFFORTLESSLY) - conceiving their own child. They just want the same privilege as them. Additionally, adoption agencies are very selective. You may say that they're selective for good reason, and I wouldn't disagree with you there - you don't want to give kids to unfit parents. But the vast majority of US states still won't let gay couples adopt, so if they want to have children the only other option they have is surrogacy.

Maybe wanting children - any kind of children - is a bit selfish, but it's basic instinct, even more so than our instincts to eat and sleep or fight or flight. I begrudge no one that want, and I would never judge any couple's method's of obtaining a child, so long as they're legal.

I myself am also not sure that I will be able to have children. Because of an illness the chance is lower and I take medication that would be potentially harmfull to the child (and I can't stop with them).

Adopting is an option that I've always considered. Now however I have a boyfriend and I understand more what Cinders has already mentioned: wanting a child of your own. Now, it is by no means certain I cannot have children: it might be possible. But if it isn't I would first try the means of getting a child that is biologically ours. A surrogate mother seems like a good option at the moment (and I have a great sister and best friend who would do that for me if necessary).

Not everyone who cannot have a child of their own can adopt. If you can not have a child because you are severely ill or at a great risk to die young, adopting a child is very hard. Adopting agencies are after all very selective in choosing which parents are able to adopt.

An why is it more selfish for people who cannot easily have children of their own to try it an other way that for the people who have no problems with getting pregnant to have a child of their own?

I'm not saying it's easy to adopt or that anyone can do it...I just think that the option should be explored before any other. And after having thought about it some more, I think that everyone should consider it first. Not just people who can't have children naturally. If adoption doesn't work out, then by all means seek other options. I just wish that everyone's first instinct was to open their hearts to children without parents or homes. The more I think on it, the more important it seems for everyone to explore that option.

And on a side note I think too many people have children recklessly [for lack of a better word]. They do it because they think it will fix their relationship, because they didn't use contraception, because everyone else is doing it etc. I believe raising a child to be the biggest responsibility a person can undertake. And I see too many people who treat it casually.

But do you think that someone who invests that much time and energy into having their own child hasn't thought about what that means? If anything, people who choose scientific alternatives to natural conception are more committed to having a child.

A gay friend of mine recently had a baby with his best friend and roommate. They live together, but they are not married. He just knew that he would never be able to have a child with his partner, and she knew that she wanted a child but didn't know if she'd ever find the right guy. They are very happy together, and I'm happy for them.

As I said before if adoption doesn't work out, for whatever reason, than by all means seek other options. What I'm talking about is those that can adopt and choose not to. Even those who can conceive naturally. What I'm saying is that I wish people were more inclined to think of it as a first option...rather than a last.

And my side note about people treating the idea of having a child casually was not in reference to any particular group of people. Just in general. And it's true that those who've expended money and effort on creating a child have given it a lot of thought. But so have the people who've expended money and effort on adoption. And in both cases, motivation for it can often be muddled. Like you said, the urge to procreate and raise a child is instinctual. And when dealing with biological urges, people don't always think clearly. And just so we're clear...I'm talking about the urge to have a kid in general. Not specific to those that conceive naturally, adopt or choose other means.

every child deserves a home :)

People who are against this are disgusting.

Happy to see there are people for adoption. :)

You're giving a homeless, loveless child a chance to experience life and be happy, adoptive parents can give as much love as biologycal parents.
Why would anyone be against it?

I have 3 picks, and yet we still have an anonymous person who picks the total opposite!

I really wish the person who picked 'against' said something. It would have been interesting to hear their view.

^ I know right?

Also, meant to say the first time around - Awesome use of Dakota Fanning in CSI. ;o)

Wait------ someone choose againest?

Wow. didn't see that one coming. XD

For. (i'm not sure if I could ever raise someone else's child but I admire people who do and do their best). Kids need love and to be taken care of; if their real parents can't do it or won't, someone has to step up. Or the child dies or lives a life in and out of foster homes (that are more often than not; abusive).

^It's not someone else's child, it's your own.

As long as there are existing children in need of homes, they should be taken care of first. Anyone who gives birth to a new child while there are still orphans around is not helping the situation at all.

You know what i find ironic about this? is that most people don't even consider adoption in the terms of children. :p