2 ms·
If that's your motive, then adopt. There are perfectly fine children, languishing in child welfare systems, who need good people to show them how to be decent h
by jessedhillon 14y ago
If that's your motive, then adopt. There are perfectly fine children, languishing in child welfare systems, who need good people to show them how to be decent humans. The world has no lack of humans, which would require us to keep creating new ones -- let's take care of the ones we have already.
In my opinion, opting for biological procreation fails the Categorical Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), thereby making that option unethical. Common-sensically, again, what is the rationalization for choosing to create a new human when you have the power to rescue a condemned innocent? Almost every answer reduces to vanity.
- pyre 14y ago> Common-sensically, again, what is the rationalization > for choosing to create a new human when you have > the power to rescue a condemned innocent? Rescuing a condemned innocent is difficult. Sometimes moreso than having a child of your own. Children in the system tend to be special needs of some sort whether it's behavioural issues, learning disabilities, or mentally challenged. Having your own child comes with such risks, but you're already invested by the time those risks bear out.
- jvoorhis 14y agoGrinding an axe over people who choose to procreate without cognizance of your interpretation of Kant's metaphysics may also be construed as a form of vanity.