Now, I?ve been nibbling this on the top of my head for the last couple of days. I?ve finally reached a conclusion but would be interested in your comments.
The question is!
Either you or your spouse are unable to have a baby. But either you or your spouse decides to adopt a child instead. Now considering that if you choose to adopt a child you would be wasting all your time and energy in somebody else?s genetic make up a.k.a DNA, not your own with your partner. In mother natures eyes you genetic make up will not go onto future generations progressing human beings development instead somebody else.
What?s your view and thoughts about the situation?
If you had those feelings you wouldnt adopt, actually you wouldn't even have a spouse because they would discover your a selfish prick for thinking like that.
Kids aren't about genetics.
If you value your own 'genetic purity' that much you wouldnt be in a relationship with a woman that wanted to adopt. Simple If you value your genetic purity that highly you would leave a spouse or a woman because you couldnt have your children with her you need professional help.
Whats the latest makeup for a child from genetics, about 10% i believe the rest is environment and how you raise them.
i think i heard about some group that was around a while ago that was into genetic/racial superiority and all that jazz, but i can't quite remember their name...
Quote from paladin;279075: the fact that you have to ask the question suggests that you'll never understand the answer.
go **** a test tube and convince someone you think is 'superior' to drop an egg in it.
So one single post gives you the information of myself completely to go and **** a test tube? Im not the one resorting to swearing at people get there message across. Just because your a infior genetic makeup than myself doesnt mean you have to resort to viloence.
Humans are attracted to each other, initially, on primal instincts. Ie, Size of the hips, colour and fullness of the lips, the amount of cleavage etc. ...the list goes on.
After that initial 'eye catching', social interaction takes over.
The fact that you are initially attracted to someone is mother nature's way of deciding who is a good breeding partner.
Human biomechanics aside, who care's if its not your biological child? If you truly desire to raise a child as your own, their genetic makeup has nothing to do with your choice. (Unless you wear pillow covers on ur head and burn crosses).
Edit - Don't forget the rationale' behind a couples choice to adopt. Its usually dictated by one of two scenarios. A. - One or both of the parents to be are sterile or B. - Compassion for an orphaned or underprivelaged child.
Yea what Milenko said. Chad's theory makes sense you'd more then likely end up/ be attracted to someone you think has good genetics; ie decant breeding genes. Like the deformend monkeys that get thrown out of the pack...
We can't help it really it's in our blood to want attractive partners...
there is a stark difference between physical 'chemistry' between two people (obviously influenced by genetics) and deciding to leave a partner because you deem him/her to be genetically unfit to carry your child.
CoCoBuckeTs I think the words genetically inferior are not the best words to actualy to use. More or less if the partner has some type of illness that renders them infertile.
In regards to paladin, that web site has been known by quite alot of people for some time. :) happy you got a laugh out of it, only problem is i dont exactly know what ftw means. Considering my original statements stands, of yourself, but that doesnt really matter considering you only point out peoples comments and don't take any comments about yourself to heart. Sort of arguing with a rock.
Although i have discussed this acouple of times with friends and familys, and it seems that the same view point comes out that most people are posting about.
Well Chad if that it the case and the woman is infertile or cannot reproduce honestly you have to ask yourself what do you want in life and what your priorities are.
Is this all hypothecial mate or something that is happening to you?
If you are unable to have children because of some genetic error, than yes that DOES make you genetically inferior. Not an inferior person tho. Personally I dont think I could support another mans child it goes against nature and instinct. Almost all male animals will destroy the young offspring of another male if they take over leadership of the pack/group. Why support a non contributing member of the group if they dont have your DNA. We are after all just animals. This is of course morally wrong but it is naturally right.
The question is all hypothecial. Although I choose the question in regarding choosing genetic supirority to see the reactions people would have against it. Although, there is a concicouse dicisiion people make that Im more intrested in knowing about. But also more concered about the reaction and mentality people have against a person who dictacts a path in life different from the norm.
Have you got a partner chad? If you do why dont you ask her this question, see what she does, THEN come back to us and give us your thoughts on the matter.
In my opinion if your both sensible and mature enough you'll talk it through and come up with what you BOTH think is best. What the outcome will be is up to the couple really, no one else.
Don't think it has anything to do with genetics in all honesty, i'm sure every couple would love their own child but I mean it's really up to the couple and what they feel they are happy with. Is leaving or adopting wrong? No not really, a pretty harsh decision if you left your partner because of it but it's obviously not what you want.
It's not an easy topic and in all honesty I really don't think it's something you can just answer. It's up to you and your partner to decide what you want, no one else.
Either you or your spouse are unable to have a baby. But either you or your spouse decides to adopt a child instead. Now considering that if you choose to adopt a child you would be wasting all your time and energy in somebody else?s genetic make up a.k.a DNA, not your own with your partner. In mother natures eyes you genetic make up will not go onto future generations progressing human beings development instead somebody else.
What?s your view and thoughts about the situation?
Just coming back to topic... (before it gets derailed again) as I can smell the stench of something...
My thoughts are (well, it's just me) that there's could be more than two sides of the coin. Gray areas are just compromises between two extremes. Choosing a partner for genetic propagatioin has very little moral content on it (it's all biological). If people decide to put morality in perspective, then the problem needs to be rephrased in a manner that reflects the dispositions that need to be addressed.
Since the original question is just asking my opinion on adoptation, or the legal and moral obligation of raising someone else's offspring and acting as guardian (until possibly the age of majority, with respect to genetic progression/presservation), my opinion is FOR, despite difference in genetic make up/lineage. One of the conditions I'll hold is that the minor must not be more than three years of age. I would even let the child/minor keep his original parent's surname.
ADD: And oh BTW... I don't believe in inferiority or superiority of race/culture/genetics. It's just one of those facist/nazi ideas everyone is welcoming/tolerating/entertainnig... and ffs, people stop derailing the thread and read between the legs... I mean the lines...
You hook up with a woman who has just had birth to a child not of your own. She then falls pregnant with your child. Now be honest, are you really gonna consider/love the kids exactly the same, or have a slight(however small) preference to your own child(as happens in the animal kingdom)? Is it wrong to love your own child more?
Quote from chad;279067: In mother natures eyes you genetic make up will not go onto future generations progressing human beings development instead somebody else.
My experience is that nature hates being anthropomorphised.
You hook up with a woman who has just had birth to a child not of your own. She then falls pregnant with your child. Now be honest, are you really gonna consider/love the kids exactly the same, or have a slight(however small) preference to your own child(as happens in the animal kingdom)? Is it wrong to love your own child more?
Call me an asshole, but to be perfectly honest, Yes, my biological child would be my favourite. Id probably make the other one live under the stairs or something.
Quote from Milenko;279113: Call me an asshole, but to be perfectly honest, Yes, my biological child would be my favourite. Id probably make the other one live under the stairs or something.
If one person wants to procreate naturally with their own gentic makeup to add to the gene pool but is unable to because their partner happens to be infertile then they need to move on to a more suitable target.
If one person loves another in a way that they want to raise a family no matter where the genetic material comes from then they are free to do that too.
Im sure many infertile people are dumped everyday for ruining their partner's hopes of natural child birth. Get used to it guys infertility climbs and birthrates drop.
Mother Nature doesn't 'intend' for us to do anything. She/it doesn't have any goals or values. Natural Selection is just what happens. So don't worry about pissing 'her' off my having other people's kids or having inferior ones.
Besides, I doubt Natural Selection works normally for humans anymore, not with all that evil medicine keeping people alive!
Quote from ruin;279131: Besides, I doubt Natural Selection works normally for humans anymore, not with all that evil medicine keeping people alive!
One could say that this is part of natural selection, because the species has devolped technology to help them survive!
This would allow an increase in genetic diversity, and could help increase the species' chance to survive. However, this would generally keep people who have genes that are usually unfavoured in the environment to survive and even given the chance to procreate, potentially passing on unfavoured genes.
I'm personally concerned that in trying to keep everyone in the world alive, we can potentially create a generation of people who will be completely dependant on medical technology to survive, because they possess genes that are dependant on medical technology.
I'm not saying that everyone doesn't have the right to live, what I am saying is that we need to start making thoughtful choices in how we bring up our future kids.
Quote from Milenko;279113: Call me an asshole, but to be perfectly honest, Yes, my biological child would be my favourite. Id probably make the other one live under the stairs or something.
Quote from Milenko;279113: Call me an asshole, but to be perfectly honest, Yes, my biological child would be my favourite. Id probably make the other one live under the stairs or something.
Why not just take the child on your custody without taking the mother? Cost less?