> "maliciously" reproducing. That's not what I said. Not even in the slightest. > What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feel

> "maliciously" reproducing. That's not what I said. Not even in the slightest. > What's also pretty bad is assuming that the author did such a thing, or feeling that the author owed you an explanation. Jeezus, talk about reading something looking to do the worst interpretation possible. You might as well have called me a eugenicist nazi. How about when you read a comment have an open mind that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't written by a nazi? My comment was pretty general, and mostly talked about people I know, who did do such a thing. > Where is the logic or humanity in questioning the value of having a child once the child already exists? That's not what I did. I'm asking why someone with perhaps multiple heritable psychological and physical problems, both in their own body and in their family, would take this huge risk. Do they presume to love an adopted child less than a biological one? I'm CLEARLY asking about the logic decision BEFORE. Because it's not actually a decision afterwards. Obviously. And it's not about the "value of having a child". That completely misses the point. > don't need to justify themselves to me Wow, you sure are a better person than this straw man you're building. Good for you. Should I apologize for wanting to understand the world, and people, better? Would you say the same thing about the entire fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology? No, nobody owes anybody an explanation. Of course not. But what kind of answer is that? If to you entire fields of knowledge have a taboo on the word "why", with the default answer "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN MYSELF TO YOU!!" (and neither must anyone else) then you sure are not anybody I'd like to talk to. Good day.