this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
365 points (94.6% liked)
childfree
2616 readers
148 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is always about having new children, it almost never is about adopting existing children into a loving home.
Why create new life when there is already plenty of kids existing who needs care and love?
This is just like atheism, a lot of atheists are far more sensitive toward the actual meaning of religion than religious people, I have seen plenty of religious people who don't seem to care about the actual religion, just the traditions or looking good, while atheists are more careful about not wanting to misrepresent/insult the religion.
Same here, the childfree people have already made their choice based on facts and beliefs, the opponents have not.
If we are talking about adoption then no there is really a huge shortage of young kids to adopt in just about every first world country. The vast majority of adoptions are between family members. The vast masses of parent less kids and orphanages that used to exist have disappeared with widespread use of birth control and abortion. There really aren't that many kids being born in the first world anymore that are unwanted. This forces many who want to adopt to turn to international adoption which is incredibly expensive and also has constant scandals with some source countries turning it into an unethical industry with malevolent actors seizing kids from parents for made up reasons. Scandal after scandal has made more source countries outlaw international adoption which is furthering the undersupply. Many prospective parents spend years and years trying to find kids to adopt.
Now if we are talking about older kids that have been forcefully seized from their parents there are lots available even domestically. But these come with a lot of problems as they are often from broken households and sometimes have a history of crime and drug use. Very commendable to adopt one of those kids but it's a whole other beast than raising a child from a young age. In some countries such as my own you dont even become a legal parent when you adopt seized kids like this. They are officially under the care of the state and you are just a contracted caretaker. Can't even call yourself a dad or mom.
Ah, thank you for correcting me, I didn't realize the situation had changed that much.
You are also right about when the government has to step in and remove a child from a bad situation, not everyone can handle that, I realize that.
I am sorry for misrepresenting the situation in my earlier post
Huge shortage of babies. Lots of not babies than nobody wants, as you pointed out.
you got any sources for any of that? Cause that sounds like an interesting read
Also something ellse Ill add is that if breeders actuallt did care about unadopted minors then they would have made a substantial push to make international adoption easier and more common. ... this push has never been substantiated thus proving to me that most breeders , and most humans to be honest, are perfectly OK with the current disgusting status quo.
Some sources but you can find countless articles about adoption scandals. International adoption is a very murky business. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3550&context=isp_collection
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/26/chile-stolen-children-international-adoption-sweden
That's not the call for adopting countries. Like how would that actually look like? The US putting pressure on third world countries to let the US adopt more of their children? That would be absolutely insane. Opening up for international adoption is 100% the call of the source country. Every country has the right to their own children first and foremost.
I myself seriously considered adoption as an alternative to biological children because I saw adoption as a great charitable act that would give a good life to a child that otherwise would live a miserable life. Of course I would want that! But after learning there is an undersupply, it's extremely expensive and it's likely to be moral problems with the adoption itself, I decided against it. Even discounting the fact that the child may have been stolen from its original family, the mere fact there is a large undersupply means that if I adopt it just means someone else doesn't get to adopt. As I have the ability to have biological children that's what me and my partner decided on. Because who knows we may be taking a child away from a couple that couldn't have children, because of infertility or because it's a male gay couple. That's when I realised adoption is not a good and charitable act. At least not in the modern world.
....Who cares about international adoption ? (also when it comes to the case of international adoption it is up to the people in each country to put their representatives in a tighter and tighter vice grip until they make it so that international adoption isnt as messy and corrupt as it currently is. OR it is up to the people of each country to set up their own grassroots , thoroughly investigative, and publicly-accountable third party international adoption organizations. If your government wwants to be complete idiots ? Then its time for you to do the governing when iit comes to that particular institution. Almost ALL cointries can be a 'source' for an adopted child. Thhe majority of wanna be-parents of all countries are guilty of allowing international adoption to become as disgusting and disordered as it is today as I havent read of any substantial population of wanna-be-parents in ANY region taking substantial actions to clean up international adoption as much as possible.)
and why has thhere been no substantial puush to makke domestic adoption easier annd more beneficial by you breeders? Have any examples of thiis Ive missed ??....
You can make both international and domestic adoption as easy as it can ever be and it won't solve the problem that there are too few kids to adopt. There are lots of people out there that want to become parents but can't, either because they are gay or because they are infertile, or simply dislike the thought of getting pregnant and giving birth. And there simply are not enough kids that need adopting. You know the vast vast majority of parents keep the kid that they birth. If we go back a century there were lots of kids being born to women who got pregnant by accident (or by rape) and to avoid shame they often hid their pregnancies and gave away their baby to an orphanage or the state after birth. In developed countries this has become rare with both abortion and single motherhood becoming more accepted. This is really something to be celebrated. Developing countries used to have lots of orphans to adopt to developed countries to fill that gap but now even developing countries are modernizing and the amount of orphans in these countries are also going down. This is an unsolvable problem. You can't enact policies that will increase the number of orphans in the world.
You have to remember that behind every adoption is a tragedy. No one is getting pregnant just for fun and giving away their baby.
.....Ahhh so breeders actually DONT care about unadopted minors. Domestic or international. Glad to know.
Byyye. I hope your children enjoy the apocalypse that you birth them to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0KQYNtPl7V4&pp=ygUaYmFkZW1wYW5hZGEgY2xpbWF0ZSBjaGFuZ2U%3D MWHAAHAHHAAHAHA!
Well, the number of kids in need of a new home is not enough to reach the number of kids needed to have a stable economy and prevent the economic collapse of an entire country. So this take is a bit naive.
And if everyone only adopted already available kids instead of creating new ones, guess what would happen after one single generation? 🙃
But yeah, it's definitely not necessary for every woman to have children, to reach these goals. A woman's body is her own and it is her choice. Even if there's a baby inside her. ✊
Edit: the ratio of votes even though I'm on the side of the sentiment in the image. 😆👍👍
Are you implying it's women's responsibility to prop up their country's economy by having children? If that's so critical and important to these religious wackadoos, why don't they do anything to help?
I realize I'm speaking to a rough crowd here, but the truth is that without children, there are no future workers, and no economy. Simple, basic fact. And men and women are both needed to bring up children in order for a country not to collapse on itself. It's not too complicated. But of course, women are the only ones who can carry a child and give birth to it, so... Not sure what to say beyond that.
But obviously, nobody is forcing women to have children in a free country. 👍
It's a tough crowd because you're saying that women are responsible for supplying the workforce of a country or the economy will collapse. Which ignores every major factor in that issue to somehow only blame women. Is the economy not the domain of our politicians? When people are starving do you yell at farmers about how they're not growing enough food?
ACKSHUALLY the economy IS the domain of the workers. The problem that most people make is thinking that politicians and other people in politics like bribed economists who tell everyone that the poor should be forced to become poorer are the ones who should control our economies....when they obviously shouldnt. The average worker probablty knows more about what foods are native to a region (native crops or animals that have adapted to a region's soil, climate, and other challenges) and what edible plants and animals can be grown in excess in a certain region to feed many starving people of that region. The people of a certain region should also be the ones who do research and ask researchers to determine if certain infrastructure or machinery is needed by the people of that region since the people living in that region, sometimes even living in that region for decades and decades, know it the region best. WE The People should control each of our economies.
And also about farmers, the farmers in most countries actually DO currently hold a lot of power over how much food costs and how much food we have access to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp11jvYE408&pp=ygUTYmFkZW1wYW5hZGEgZmFybWVycw%3D%3D
Thank you!
Check again. I wrote:
I wish I could do something about women being the only ones who could give birth, but alas...
What politicians? What farmers? There will be no one left if there are no children. 😆
Dipshit, we're not saying no one should have children.
Name calling, I stopped reading after that. Don't reply again.
You repeated your mistake instead of correcting it. You are, evidently, a dipshit.
And you're so insecure, you let a name prevent you from engaging with the actual argument. What a baby.
You keep doing ad hominems again, and I don't come to Lemmy for that. I come here for adult conversations, with adults. You are not someone I want to talk to now, with this derailing into kindergarten name calling.
Please shove off. 👋
Stop lying about other people's beliefs.
Stop pretending women aren't being harmed by this pro-birth bullshit.
Fuck yourself, dipshit.
I'm not pretending that isn't happening. You're reading between the lines things that are not there. This whole conversation is totally on you. Also, blocked. Have a nice life. Hope you heal, like others said.
Coward.
People are dying for your stupidity.
Good fucking riddance.
We don't live in a free country. See Texas.
Also, it's disingenuous to take "not everyone should have kids" to mean "nobody should have kids". Most people aren't saying that.
The state of Texas isn't forcing women to get pregnant though. Just forcing them not to abort.
How do you mean I'm not being sincere? Are you sure you're using that word correctly? I see that word being thrown around but often it doesn't make sense in the context.
I suppose you sincerely misread and misrepresented the idea that not every woman must give birth to mean no woman should give birth? It comes across as intentional distortion, a strawman to make your position sound more reasonable.
Including when said women do not choose to become pregnant. https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/26000-texas-rape-caused-births-alarm-abortion-rights-groups-18513901/
You are kind of misinterpreting that I'm saying this is about the absolute end of the spectrum that is "no women should have children". I'm not talking about that either. I'm just taking about there being a QUOTA. Very different.
Also notice I'm not calling you names. :-P
Yup. It's very bad. We are all looking at Texas with Handmaid's Tale fresh in our collective memory.
Then why did you say this?
Did you forget your own comments?
Liar. We're looking at a post saying "100% of women who are able should have children". Reasonable people say "of course that's wrong." You say "but with 0% of children, there will be no population." No one brought that up but you. You moved from 100 to 0 and ignored the endless space in between.
Good for you. I want you to know you're a dipshit because your dipshittery is hurting people.
Yet you pretended no one is being forced to have children. Fix your shit.
Please show me where you think I said this explicitly. I'll try my best to explain what I really meant because that's not the sentiment I was going for.
I wasn't replying to the post, I was replying to a comment. 👍 What I'm saying has a more specific context.
...
How?
What I said was, and I quote, "nobody is forcing women to have children in a free country." You answered with the statement that you don't live in a free country. I agree with that. What's there to fix?
Also will you just fucking relax? I'm being chill and you're just coming off like a real asshole even though I'm only talking calmly and not insulting anyone. We can talk if you behave, otherwise you're blocked at the next infraction. I'm sick of your childish shit. Behave.
You actually forgot? This is the comment I quoted: https://lemmy.world/comment/25567218
Great. Show us in the comment where they said no one should have children.
Or dangerously forgetful?
You are misrepresenting the situation. It's not 100% children vs 0% children. By strawmanning, you might deceive other dummies into your position.
Correct.
You did not explicitly agree earlier. You instead said, "The state of Texas isn't forcing women to get pregnant though. Just forcing them not to abort."
Women who did not choose to become parents are being forced to bear their rapist's child.
People are dying and I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.
Fuck yourself. Think of the victims, selfish dumbass. Not every person should have children. Children suffer for the decisions their parents make. Women suffer as a direct result of pro-birth bullshit.
I don't respect pieces of shit. Make better comments if you want kindness. You evidently don't realize how harmful false statements can be.
Blocked. You're too angry of a person to talk to. I see how you talk to others on here as well, and I don't need people like you in my life. You're cancer, and you spread. Bye. I will not see further replies.
A song for cancer like you:
https://snoopsqueak.com/videos/fys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7dWyYeOBkg&pp=0gcJCRMMAYcqIYzv